The Science of Applause

The patterns of an audience's applause is a strange thing if you start to think about it.  Have you noticed it usually just takes one inspired person to start an applause in a big group?  Some join the applause to equally express their agreement.  Some join in to make sure there isn't that really awkward "one-person clap" which makes you wish no one clapped at all.  Many others join in unconsciously just because everyone else is clapping.

But there are some applauses that begin not really because of inspired audience members, but literally because there is a part of the performance where the music stops or the passionate speaker pauses and an applause is actually expected.  Have you noticed this?  It is very interesting.  They will literally draw an applause out of an audience.  This isn't necessarily manipulating.  For example, in a school play an audience may genuinely want to give an applause throughout the performance, but for disruption purposes they are instead guided to specific points where applauses are then expected.  But for many other performances or speeches there are not such noble reasons.  In fact, if you pay attention you will notice it is often quite an artificial contrivance.  Think of some fiery political speeches or some impassioned preachers for example.  Many of these people know how to artificially draw out an applause at the right moments to solidify their wooing of an audience.  Or think of bands at a concert and the way they might end their songs quite dramatically with the expectation of applause.  Can the audience do anything but applaud?  In these situations many audiences often will clap out of necessity or habit, or not wanting to make the speaker or performer feel bad.  All this is quite intriguing to me.

In many contemporary worship services it is not infrequent to hear an applause at the end of a worship song.  I wonder sometimes, what is the congregation truly applauding in church?  There is not one answer.  Every church is different of course.  Many are carried away in worship and adoration of God.  And the applause is actually a collective expression of their sense of the magnificence of God.  But I would also say, for many churches there are not such noble reasons.  Some impassioned church bands will do the same thing many other bands do on the secular stage; and they artificially draw out an applause from the congregation for their performance, like was mentioned above.  Some are not as brazen, but congregations are still confused and find themselves clapping for reasons they probably would have difficulty explaining.  To what or to whom they are clapping is quite ambiguous.

Some congregations, no doubt, just want to be respectful to the church band for its hard work and performance in the worship.  But there again lies something of the true underlying values of many church members and its leaders.  Church is an experience, where the congregation is on the receiving/viewing end and the band and the pastor are the performers.  And the one thing a respectful audience always does toward performers is give them a respectful applause.  I wonder how much of our fellowships and the members thereof actually view church through this lens.  A lens of performance.  In fact, there are many churches who do not call the members gathered for worship the congregation, etc. but actually call them the "audience."  Audiences receive performances.  Audiences don't participate in performance.  Audiences are always meant to be doing something significantly different than those on stage.  Is that really how we are supposed to think about church?  Is the Pastor or the worship leader doing something fundamentally different than everybody else?  Are those in the pew experiencing the worship or producing the worship?  It's very telling what's actually happening often by just the language that is used.  I wonder what would change if in people's minds God was actually the audience (not themselves) and every church member is on display for Him on Sundays.  Or even better, if everyone is the audience of just one performer: God.  I wonder what would change in how music is lead or how sermons are preached.  I also wonder the ways it would challenge congregations to rethink the objects of its applause.

De-debunking Trinitarian Analogies

It is said St. Patrick once explained the Trinity to the pagan inhabitants of Ireland by using a three-leaf clover.  Augustine preferred the psychological analogies of the mind, the emotions, the will, etc. as three expressions of one being.  Other analogies such as a single component of water (H2O) existing in three different states (ice, liquid, vapor), or a man who exists with three distinct roles (husband, father, friend, etc.) have become popular.  But actually Trinitarian analogies have now fallen out of favor.

In his systematic theology, Wayne Grudem typifies the theological posture of standard evangelical scholarship toward these type of Trinitiarian analogies.  First, he debunks the adequacy of the more common analogies comparing them to ancient and modern heresies, and then summarizes: "It is best to conclude that no analogy adequately teaches about the Trinity and all are misleading in significant ways."  So how does he debunk them?

Take the water analogy for example.  Grudem outlines its inadequacy by showing that there are parts of the analogy that don't translate to the Trinity.  For example "...no quantity of water is ever [in these states] at the same time," or "the element of intelligent personality is lacking."  But this is just a misunderstanding of what an analogy does.  Grudem confuses an analogy for an allegory.  An allegory has lots of elements and parts that are meant to be translated and interpreted as a symbol for something else.  Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory because many of the parts of the story are meant to be interpreted as a symbol of our spiritual journey.  An analogy is similar, but differs in one important respect.  There only needs to be one element that is translatable for an analogy to be well formed.  For example, God is our rock, the bible says.  This is an analogy.  How is God like a rock?  God is firm and immovable and trustworthy for building our life upon.  But is God made of granite?  Do rocks have intelligent personality?  No.  But I hope you can see that this doesn't mean the analogy is inadequate or misleading!  That is because the true function of an analogy is more limited than what Grudem and so many others assume in this context.  I am sure you can think of hundreds of biblical analogies along these lines.  God is a shield.  Jesus is a lamb.  Paul is a drink offering.  All these analogies have non-translatable features.  God is not made of metal.  Jesus does not produce wool from his body.  Paul is not inanimate liquid.  But none of those possible features mean the analogy is misleading or inadequate.  No analogies, including Trinitarian ones, need to be translatable in every or even in most parts for it to be an accurate or decent analogy.  It only needs at least one part.

Grudem knows this.  But I'm not sure he has worked through the implications of this for Trinitarian analogies.  He even knows that there are biblical words that are meant to be an analogy of the members of the Trinity.  The bible says God is a Father.  It also says Jesus is the Son, and the Word of God.  He says they are "close to an analogy" of the Trinity.  It is true they are not analogies of the doctrine of the Trinity per se, but they undoubtedly are analogies of the members of the Trinity and the inter-Trinitarian relationships.  And they are faithful biblical analogies not because for instance everything that characterizes a son in a typical family is like Jesus.  They are faithful analogies because one (or maybe two) characteristics of sonship match perfectly to Jesus.  If we only demand this more limited role for analogies whenever we (or the bible!) use them, why then do we demand some entirely different standard from Trinitarian analogies?