Upon this "Rock" I Will Build My Church

I know my posts tend to be negative, but don't misinterpret that I am a crotchety, old man that likes to complain (even though I am). Critical thinkers are not viewed in the best light these days. My employment, my general tendencies, and my spiritual gifts I would say all work with one another so as most of my day is spent in thinking. My gift is seeing potential problems and pointing them out. Using that gift makes me seem somewhat of a "cheap seats" commentator. There are great things going on in the church today - it's not all (or primarily) bad. Most is good and God is in control. So no worries! But, regardless, let me continue to take on a "prophet-like" roll - "prophet-like" not in the sense of accuracy, but rather in the sense of how the little the message might be potentially well received. So as I drag out an old issue and beat this dead horse again.........

...CAN SOMEONE PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT OUR CONTEMPORARY WORSHIP MUSIC???!!! I've harped (no pun intended) in previous blog entries on the fact that the lyrics in today's contemporary Christian worship lack something to be desired IMHO, but there are other issues just as important that need addressing as well, and these are: purpose, loudness, and tone.


WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WORSHIP?

Wikipedia defines worship as specific acts of religious praise, honour, or devotion, typically directed to a supernatural being such as God, a god or goddess. It is the informal term in English for what sociologists of religion call cultus, the body of practices and traditions that correspond to theology. Now, this isn't the only definition that exists, but it's pretty safe to assume that this definition should be fairly accurate. So, (starting slowly here) first it can be assumed that worship involves a "worshipper" (us) and a "worshipee" (God). Second, there is "praise", "honor", and "devotion" involved being transferred from "worshipper" to "worshipee". Each one of these entail different things. In my mind, "devotion" would deal more with "repetitiveness". If the act of worship only happened once then it would merely be "acknowledgement". But, no, we go to church every seventh day and we go for the purpose of worship. When I think of "honor", I think of someone being placed in a seat of honor as those who do the honoring (one by one) state undeniable facts as to why this person deserves their honor. And "praise" I think of more as telling the one being "honored" how he/she has excelled and/or how that makes you feel about him/her.


SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE?

I think everyone would agree on the fact that worship should be "devotional". And we agree to this by the mere fact that we attend church every Sunday. It's the next two characteristics of worship ("honor" and "praise") that I think are the sticky wickets.

Up until the 1980's, traditional worship music consisted primarily with hymns. Hymns are "dirgish" in nature. In other words, they are reverently somber in tone while typically being very theological in nature. I would put hymns into the worship category of "honor". God is recognized as being in His rightful place of "honor" and/or "glory" and the aspects of His character are expounded upon. God is the center of focus in hymns. It is very "factual" based singing (if I can create that terminology). Not that elements of "praise" were not (or are not) present in hymns, but rather it is not this characteristic that is primarily noticeable.

Enter the 1980's and you have the advent of contemporary Christian type worship. I classify these songs in the worship category of "praise" and would indeed call them praise songs. These songs arose primarily as a backlash to the "dirgish" nature of hymns and they center more around the emotion that God evokes in us as we reflect on what he has done for us. As such, these songs tend to be more focused on how we feel in light of what God has done for us.


SO WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE HERE?

There's some good and bad here. I remember growing up in Inter-varsity Christian Fellowship and it's difficult for me to fully comprehend how the more upbeat style of worship (as an alternative to hymns) impacted my Christianity. I know that this type of worship coupled with the idea of "grace" really allowed me to fully grasp who God was and who He wanted me to be.

There were some alternatives songs that seemed to hit the mark. I think about the song "Glory and Praise To Our God". BINGO! Both aspects of worship present - "honor" (glory) and "praise":

"Who alone gives light to our days." - Honor -Pure theological truth.
"Many are the blessings we share for those who trust in His ways." - Praise - how it affects us.

And, alas, some that might have attempted to hit the mark but fell short. Like the song "We Exalt Thee" which evokes a lot of emotion, and maybe intending to put God in a place of honor, but misses the point that God is already exalted we simply must honor Him by acknowledging that fact. This is a case where theology was ignored and the emotion produced by the lyrics and music deemed enough for worship.

I think that both elements of "praise" and "honor" should exist in our worship. And I would add the caveat that our worship music MUST remain above all else "theological". Indeed, if it isn't, then what are we singing about. We cannot assume truth in our worship and leave non-believers to figure it out. Notice the last part of the wikipedia definition and keep in mind this is a generic definition and not one simply for Christianity. But it says - "the body of practices and traditions that correspond to theology". Theology must be the foundation of our worship music.


"SEEKER SENSITIVE" - LOUDNESS AND TONE

I believe that the "seeker sensitive" movement has gradually and dangerously shifted the focus of our worship music from the "honor" aspect of worship to primarily (and almost solely) to the "praise" aspect of worship. We seem to almost be at the other end of the spectrum now from hymnotic dirges. I have already lamented the lack of theology and God-centeredness of most all of our new and current contemporary worship songs. But what happened? How did we get here?

In an attempt to try and be more relevant to today's postmodern society, the evangelical church decided that it must emphasize the loving Christ over and above a Holy God. To get the unbelieving world to listen, the Church decided that it must put forth and emphasize the divine aspects of a close, almost touchable, emotional, and loving friend as opposed to a distant, too holy to touch, law-giving and disciplining Father. Our worship music followed this line of thinking and our worship music changed to accommodate it. The goal is to be seeker sensitive. To draw in non-believers (at all cost?) and subconsciously not to offend them. Theological truths are offensive to the non-believer. So we are left with an unbalanced worship where "praise" is the only aspect of worship that is emphasized (and maybe incorporated at all). A worship that sings of the praises of what God has done for "me" and how that makes "me" feel, and this almost devoid of any theological truth. We want music to move us emotionally. But shouldn't it be truth that touches our emotions? Otherwise, are we looking at simple sentimentality as we sing?

I fully believe that this is why the volume and tone of our worship music has increased. The music was so loud at my church on Sunday that I actually had to cover my ears. And the question that crossed this "old fogey's" mind was - "Shouldn't worship be more quiet and respectful than loud and "in your face"? If you asked someone to cover their eyes and ears and picture in their heads what worship looked and felt like, I wonder how many would picture an image of a quiet and restful place as opposed to a loud and active place? Not to say that music should always be quiet and respectful, but rather to say that "loudness" really seem to be valued in ownership today. And why?

I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not (in an effort to be seeker sensitive) we have begun trying to accommodate the non-believing world's appetite for "being entertained". I can't find any other reason to value "volume". And it makes me ask myself more questions - "What aspect of worship decreases when volume increases?" And "is there one more aspect to worship that we have not considered?"

I am trying to determine in my own mind whether or not I think that another key element of worship is "intimacy". If it is, then we are beginning to lose another aspect of worship. If the music becomes so loud that you cannot hear yourself sing (much less the person across from you), is there by default a certain amount of intimacy lost between members of the body? And at what point does the volume turn what should be worship into simply a concert (I have been sinfully thinking of bringing a Bic lighter to church on Sunday).

Lastly, is the idea of "tone" of our worship. I do not think it is intended, but there just seems to be a brashness to our singing. We sing not only "loudly", but I would say "boldly". And, again, I think this idea of an Immanent God (God is my buddy) over and above the idea of a Transcendent God (God is my Holy Father) is coming into play here. The hymns would tend to focus on the Transcendent God - our unworthiness and our singing coming from a more reverent posture, whereas contemporary Christian worship would tend to focus an Immanent God - our "justification" and "how we are righteous because of Christ" and would be sung from a more "I can do anything through Christ who strengthens me" posture. Neither of these ideas are bad, but is one posture more appropriate for worship? What scares me about the "bold" singing is that it tends to be solely focused on "me and how God makes me feel". Maybe the lyrical focus on all aspects of worship would automatically set the proper "tone" of our worship.


A LOT OF STUFF ON THE TABLE

There's a lot of stuff here to think about I know. But if you have concluded that there is absolutely no merit to what I am saying, then we are essentially talking about "my worship style" and what my preferences are in terms of worshipping God. And as long as I include all of the elements necessary to have a biblical type of worship, then shouldn't I be able to worship God the way I see fit? And can I not assume that there are others like me who generally feel this way as well? And should the church not be more balanced between being "seeker sensitive" and "parishioner" sensitive on this issue since it affects the entire Body of Christ?

We have to have a balanced worship. I am not advocating going back to hymns (but, man, there is some great theology here), but in some ways I think that it would be more biblical than what we have currently. I am only imploring those who sing and write contemporary worship music to regain the balance between all aspects of worship.

Cinderella Man

I recently watched the movie Cinderella Man.

Cinderella Man is the true story of James Braddock who was boxing's heavyweight champion from 1935-1937. Braddock lived during the Depression years and although he made a decent living from boxing, like most he lost everything when the Depression hit. On top of this, in trying to move up in weight class from light heavyweight to heavyweight, he broke his hand during one of his fights which led to subsequent losses. In turn, these losses caused his career to spiral downward.

Braddock had six mouths to feed and was forced to swallow his pride in numerous instances just to make ends meet and care for his family. The movie depicts him standing behind a fence with many other men hoping to be selected for dock work for the day. He also is depicted asking for help from some of his former boxing associates as he passes his hat around for handouts. He is shown standing in line for government assistance. All this to make ends meet until fortuitously he was able to get his boxing career back on track and eventually win the heavyweight boxing title.

I found several aspects of this movie compelling. I found it ironic that (just as today's athletes) Braddock was fighting for money. Yep, it was all about the money. However, it was not money for the "hottest new car", but money simply for "heat". Not money for "suits and power ties", but simply for "power", as in electrical power. And not money simply for the sake of having money or to have a lot of "green", but simply money to stay "out of the red" and stay "in the black". The value of money had one, simple meaning to Braddock and his family - survival.

Two things struck me most about this movie. The first thing was that life seemed a lot more "simple" then. Not simple as opposed to "difficult", but rather simple as opposed to "complicated". And I mean "complicated" in the sense of being "busy and multi-faceted"as our lives often seem today. Living wasn't complicated for Braddock. He needed to work. He needed to make money. He needed to provide for his family their basic needs - food and warmth. It was that "simple".

Second, there seemed to be a whole 'nuther set of (what I'll call) "simple" values being adhered to that seemingly garner little attention or honor today - Christian values I might add that are not particularly emphasized today (at least, I rarely hear it from the pulpit). Simple values that involve caring for your family first and foremost. Simple values of earning a living. Simple values that do not expect the world to take care of you. Simple values that say "I will live my life correctly no matter how long, and arduous, and seemingly unproductive it seems in the immediate. I will persevere if only inch by inch." Simple values that say, "I may not do many things, but I will do the basic things, the little things, the right things, the simple things!"

THE SIMPLE LIFE

My mind keeps chewing on this idea of "the simple life" and makes me ask myself the question - "Why would Paris and Nicole ever subject themselves to feeding pigs?" Actually, I am kidding, but there is relevance here. What you had with this show (among other things) was today's postmodern, complicated culture moving through a time warp into an era (in the not so distant past I might add) of what most would call simple living. What ultimately made this show interesting? funny? sad? was not that Paris and Nicole were "stupid", but rather that they were "ignorant" - ignorant to the ways of a life they have never before known. From their world view, the notion of milking cows and slopping pigs seemed irrelevant, insignificant, and meaningless. It wasn't that they never understood what to do (once they were told), but rather that they were unable to see the meaning in what they were doing and the relevance to what they normally would do in their postmodern, techno world. From their world view, there were much more important things to be doing.

Which really gets to the questions that keep being raised in my own mind - "Where has this notion of the "simple life" gone as relates to our Christianity? Are there ways that today's postmodern, techno church does not see or comprehend the relevance of a more "simple" Christianity? Does today's church tend to over-emphasize certain aspects of Christian living which are more in line with the thinking of a postmodern culture and by doing so diminish the importance of some basic, simple, and foundational Christian living principles?

In my mind, I believe that the church is currently placing more emphasis on "doing" rather than "being". It also seems that the church (as does our postmodern society) currently places more emphasis on "quantifiable" ministry over and above "unquantifiable" ministry. In other words, the church seems to value and emphasize more, say, the ministry of evangelism over and above the ministry of discipleship as well as the ministry of caring for one's own family. I am not saying that more people are involved in ministering to other's around the world than they are their own families. This is not about what is actually being "done", but rather what is actually being "valued" and "emphasized" in our churches. The reason that I come up with for this seems to ultimately come back to the apparent fact that we as American, evangelical Christians now value "visible" productivity more than anything else - similar to our technological, postmodern society. We value "definable" goals and "visible" progress. We tend to deem more spiritual those ministries that have "definable" goals and "visible" and "overt" results. We deem as praise-worthy "tangible" and "visible" forward movement.

Conversely, we speak and focus little on less visible (indeed, almost invisible) and covert productivity. We speak little these days of the under appreciated, under celebrated, and relatively unnoticed covert world of ministering to one's own family and one's own personal sanctification and holiness. This aspect of simple living gains little attention or acknowledgment today (unless your kids act up in public and their behavior then can seemingly become an indictment on your parenting skills). The church would not deny the importance of personal holiness and sanctification of its parishioners, nor the importance of properly raising a family, but it's as if these important aspects of Christian living are now sort of taken for granted as "things that anybody can do at any time if they choose, but there are more important things to be concerned with" - not so dissimilar to how Paris and Nicole would view pig slopping. So the bigger fish to fry are the "productive" ministries of evangelism and ministry to the poor and homeless. While in the meantime, personal holiness and sanctification are seemingly left unattended on the back burner.

I find it interesting that we do not value simple living any more! Living in a community. Caring for one another's needs. Intentionally raising a family. Pursuing holiness. I do not see these aspects of Christian life being advocated any more nor praised. In fact, I think we tend to look back at previous generations of Christians who held such values and subconsciously deem them as uninformed, uneducated, unproductive, milk toast, isolationists who, but by the grace of God, barely make it into the Kingdom. We likewise subconsciously give ourselves a spiritual pat on the back if we are actively engaged with the world at large in highly visible ministries and we value others we see doing likewise. Anything less is being slackard. "Let me see something tangible" is seemingly the subconscious mentality and mantra of our churches which has been adopted from the post modern culture we live in. Maybe it is a backlash as well against a Church that seemingly cared little for the outside world going back to the 1970's. Regardless, it feels as though the good intentions of trying to get the evangelical church to engage the unbelieving, outside world has actually turned into an exchanging of values: giving up simple values that do not necessarily produce visible, measurable progress for more complex values that will produce visible, measurable progress. In other words, in our attempt to gain spiritual ground by trying to get the church to be more involved with and engaged with the outside world and thus gaining measurable converts, we have given up the once secure ground of simple, peaceful, meditative, family living that produces the often immeasurable progress of holiness and sanctification.

BLAISE PASCAL WAS A BIG, FAT, "DO-NOTHING"!

Look at your church and see which type of parishioners are apparently thriving and appreciated these days. My guess is it's the type A personalities. Type A personalities are "go getters", "get something done", "don't bother me with details" type of Christians. "Producers", "movers and shakers". These people get visible, tangible, and measurable results. I can't help but think how monks who translated Scripture would be viewed in today's society. These were considered pious and spiritual men in their day. What a waste of time translating all of those manuscripts when there was always the more quickly producible results of feeding the poor or gaining converts by witnessing to pagan tribes. How would a Blaise Pascal be viewed in today's society? Pascal was renowned essentially for his "thinking". In today's evangelical culture, he would be viewed as a "do nothing introspective" who wastes his time alone pondering the intricacies of Christian living who (in the process of his non-productivity) makes life much more arduous and plodding than it has to be. I can hear it now! We would tell him to "Focus! What is your goal here?! Where are you and where are you going? Let's come up with some concrete ideas here. Ethereal thinking does not produce tangible, replicable results! We need plans and processes! We need flow charts that stay on topic! Simple, concrete topics! If you can't explain it to us in 5 minutes, and we cannot implement it in 10 minutes, then it is useless to anyone!" My fear is we would also subconsciously want to say this to our theologians as well.

This concept of "productivity" is so ingrained in us that we automatically bring it into our relationship with God. Admit it. We feel better about ourselves if we are actively engaged in visible ministries. If we didn't we would be spending more time alone with God. How many of us spend more time alone with God than in ministry? How would ministers be viewed if they spent over half of their time alone with God and less than half in visible ministry? How many ministers in an effort to be productive work too many hours to the detriment of their own family's spiritual growth and health? Why do they do this if visible Christian ministry and measurable productivity are not being valued more than (and over and above) simple, unmeasurable, mostly invisible and (at times) seemingly unproductive family ministry? Because evangelism and ministry has come to be valued more than discipleship and holiness - discipleship of one's own family and the sanctification of one's own personal life. It's the Mary/Martha syndrome. Deep down we really respect more the busyness and productivity of Martha over and above Mary's seemingly unproductive sitting in the presence of Christ. Again, I am not saying that the majority of church goers are off being overly productive. I am saying that the leadership in our churches seem to be more afraid of their church being non-productive than they are non-holy. Yes, there still are a great many parishioners that are not involved as they should be, but the one's who are involved have seemingly adopted their leadership's mentality which is "we got to be doing something".

AMERICAN GOTHIC

This painting gave me nightmares as a kid. I was so afraid of waking up one day and these two being my grandparents. Look at those faces and tell me a spanking is not on the way!

Ask us today what first comes to our minds when viewing this painting and we would probably say, "They'd be a lot more productive if they used a combine instead of a pitchfork!" The unspoken assumption and value system behind such a statement would be that productivity is always "good", and by definition must be "fast", must be "visible", must be "measurable", and the "more people" it affects the better. But we would not be prone to stop and think of how one, single man's life might be affected in "relatively smaller", "invisible", "unmeasurable" ways by going from a pitchfork to a combine.

What about the loss of personal, spiritual growth that comes from the more strenuous task of using a pitchfork as one tries to fulfill God's command of tilling the land. It could be argued that the combine is a way to try and reverse the effects of the Fall (that's a whole 'nuther blog). What about the loss of a sense of work ethic in going to a combine? (I don't think most of us Americans feel the weight of the curse to till the land in light of the fact that work has become less physical due to technological advances - again, another blog, another time). Does work for the individual become more about production and making money than about earning a living and providing for your family? (I find it interesting that in the days of my grandparents, hard work helped define one's character and today we hear sermons on how your job should not define who you are). Are we taking the time to consciously weigh the positive effects for the masses against the corresponding negative effects for the one individual?

It's funny, we have exchanged deep thinking and simple living with simple thinking and complicated living. We have exchanged a smaller quantity of inch wide and mile deep Christians for a larger quantity of mile wide and inch deep Christians. It's like we are afraid that Christ has already set the time for His return and that He will come back before we can evangelize the world and bring to faith everyone that is supposed to be a Christian. How screwy is that thinking? Doesn't God set the time table? Do you really think he is relying on us to be productive and on time? How silly is the notion that it is a race to the rapture to see how many people we can bring to faith? Is God not bigger than this anyway? Don't you think God will bring to faith those whom he has predestined with or without you?

Certainly we should be involved in ministry, but this American post modern idea of "productivity" is prevalent in our church it seems. I hear sermons on ministry to the outside world. I do not hear sermons any more on how you are ministering to your family or how you are nurturing your spiritual life. I see ministries primarily focused on the outside world. I do not see ministries primarily focused on those within the church. Why are we trying to measure the immeasurable and acting as if we are critical to God's plans? Is that a blasphemous statement? I said "critical", not "helpful".

In his book "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction", Eugene Peterson once said, "There is a great market for religious experience in our world; there is little enthusiasm for the patient acquisition of virtue, little inclination to sign up for a long apprenticeship in what earlier generations of Christians called holiness." He made this observation 28 years ago. For us, I would be prone to change the phrase "religious experience" to "religious productivity".

I know there has always been the issue of mobilizing the laity, but our preaching and leadership must be balanced. We cannot abandon the message and theology behind personal sanctification and holiness in an effort to hammer home the need for evangelical involvement. Maybe a more balanced message from those in leadership would mobilize more of the laity. But it's as if our fear is so great of not being productive that we leave more to chance with personal growth and holiness which cannot be seen or calculated, than we do with ministry and evangelism which are visible and in many ways can be calculated. And this is evident in what we preach and emphasize to the laity.

BACK TO CINDERELLA MAN

I've digressed a long way from Cinderella Man. But all this to say that there is a part of me that longs for "simpler" times. Is that a bad thing to long for? Is that a good thing to long for? I don't know. But I do believe we need to re-think what "progress" and "productivity" really mean to Christians and not leave it to the postmodern world to define it for us. And I do believe we need to re-evaluate what our fundamental beliefs are about Christian living and begin to balance this with our views of evangelism and ministry. Indeed, personal and family Christian living should be the foundation for evangelism and ministry. The cart must be kept before the horse (ah, a simple phrase from a day gone by).