We End Up Being What We Practice Being, Part II

Good comments on the last entry, and I want to respond to a couple of them.

Goz wrote: "Two of the choruses you have quoted from were written by friends of mine in the UK. While I understand the point you are trying to prove I think taking their words out of a wider context and dressing them as a scapegoat for simplistic lyrical flair, slightly unfair. A text without a context is a pretext and, in the two cases you pointed out, the context of both songs is a wider body of rich and Godly material that generally meets your own crtieria for success: to instruct, praise, and uplift."

True. And I emailed him to apologize for picking on Martin Smith and Matt Redman, two men who can write wonderfully complex, theologically insightful music when they choose. My point should have been clearer. I used the term "apparent simpletons" not as an attack on these two, but because of the tendency of certain churches to choose the easiest, poppiest, snappiest, clap-happiest choruses available. I well remember a pastor telling me not to choose hard choruses because people wouldn't be able to memorize them quickly and then close their eyes and "really worship." Yeesh.

Bob wrote: "Fixing our worship won't necessarily fix the discipleship gap in American churches. Are Catholic being shaped by their worship towards living lives for others that evangelical or megachurch Christians aren't?"

Indeed. It won't fix the discipleship gap if we only focus on the worship service, but not fixing the worship service won't help the discipleship gap either. I would prefer to fix both. But discipleship can begin in the worship service, and it doesn't begin if we never insist they act like disciples in the context of a worship service. I was only addressing the worship service in the previous entry. The overall ecclesiological problem I've addressed many times in the past, most notably in the "Size Matters, I Think" posts.

Tim Sean said (and please read his whole comment for the context): "It isn't about the planned worship experience.  It's about relationship and community that urge one another on to deeper, more meaningful existence."

It's about both. Since we already have a worship service, and since we're calling it that, it ought to be a worship service. My expectations aren't that all the community transformation will take place in the service. Indeed, God is God, and we ought not expect God to come whenever we call her. Occasionally though, if the environment is right, and if we are engaged in the worship of God and not indulging our appetites in some suburban, cracker-ass, cult of the self, then God might actually change a few of us or an entire community. For that to happen, we have to make the worship service a worship service and not a vending kiosk for Jesus-lite products.

And Jim said (this one makes me want to cry): "But you left out the warning. Affirming and (worse) acting on the things you called for in your post is maybe the best way I know to kill a modern north American congregation."

This after Jim explains they've been doing some of the things I talk about and the church is dying. Yeah. I expect that we'll need to give up our love affair with bigness if we're to really grow a church in North America. Once again, I've talked about the reasons I believe this in the "Size Matters" posts. We've spent thirty years shaping people through a series of practices to be really damn fine consumers. To reshape them into disciples requires a small death first. It's Gospel talk though: seeds falling into the ground, taking up a cross, laying down a life, greater love has no man than this..." You know the stories. Vocationally it's challenging because big means salary, benefits, housing allowance, and 401K. I'm aware of the prickly nature of this discussion. But death is part of life and death is part of the Gospel, and the good news is that not even death can stop the kingdom of God--after all, it's inaugurated by a death and a resurrection.

Grace and peace and thanks to all for participating. You really do give me hope that God will breathe on these people again and the God of hope will call us in hope to participate in the dream of God for these people.

Comments

[jvpastor]

Good follow up post,

and on another subject, I checked out your White Trash Friday Night photo albulm, and the only thing you are missing is some cigarettes, a policeman, and a video camera...you could have made the next episode of COPS.

[Tim Sean]

I am a professional minister. Truth be told, I am one of the ministers who wants to put some of these ideas into practice and let the chips fall where they may. So what church would want to hire the leader of the incredibly shrinking church?

I have an exit strategy from teh profession, just so far no gonads to put it into motion. And then? Still firmly believe I have the calling, just no longer need the institution to give it validation.

I use to refer to church insitutions as a kind of "trickle-down spirituality." You have to play the lowest common denominator game and hope that true encounter and transformation trickles down, or happens in spite of the larger machine in pockets (on mission trips, sitting around kitchen tables, smaller ministries that occur in the life of the church). And guess what, that does happen. So what to do with that.

Iguess what I'm saying, if I ever do finally end up being a non-paid Christian, I'll have sort of a twisted respect for those who still risk the job of curator for the church. Because I'm not sure where it's likely to go better. Even in smaller more organic communities you still end up apeasing assholes and puttingup with weird institutional dynamics.

And this is coming straight out of the mouth of a church-whore.

[Jim]

I didn't mean to put you on the edge of tears... though of course, I am like that too more often than I want to be. Nice to have some company.

Brandon did a post based on some of the comments in your previous post, which I'm sure you've seen by now. I commented on that post too, that I think the church does need to die. You've said it more eloquently in the above post than I was able to over at Bad Christian.

"To reshape them into disciples requires a small death first."

I think you could take the qualifier 'small' away. Discipleship requires a death. And Amen, it is Gospel talk. In fact, it is the gospel itself. As Robert Farrar Capon likes to say, being a disciple of Jesus is for those who can accept their leastness, lostness, littleness, and deadness.

Well, enough rambling from me. See you on COPS.

[greg]

JV,

For the record, I'd also need to be wearing a stained wife-beater to really make COPS, or go shirtless. I also could leave the top of my head bald and grow a skullet.

[jvpastor]

I was searching the pictures hard for a koozie that said "i'd rather be fishin'". The snake really adds quite an effect. I didn't know you grew up that "kind" of pentecostal.

[Fr'nklin]

I’m a paid minister and I can’t help but wonder if we need to ditch the whole notion of the “worship service”. The emphasis on the "worship service" seems to play right into the hands of some rutheless dictators: Success, Pragmatism, Tradition, and $$$$$$.

We want to be successful, which means we are GROWING. We get on the internet to find out "what works" and when we find it, we do it forever and the ppl who like what we're doing come and give us $$$$$...and we GROW. And we build a building because we are a "growing church" and "successful"...and the cycle continues.

I think I can consent to the notion that the people of God have always “gathered” in some form or another. It seems that the early church did gather on Sunday (not the only day)…but not in a building they owned…it appears it was in a home(s).

What did they do? It seems at times rather chaotic and perhaps it changed from region to region, but it seems it was a time to pray, study Scripture, perhaps sing, eat, ask questions, and hear from God (prophecy, tongues). Acts 2, 4 and 1 Cor. 14 feeel different than the contemporary church of today!

Could it be that by owning property and buildings we are sowing the seeds of many of the problems mentioned in your post and these comments? I’m treading as lightly as I can…realizing my own neck is on the line…so…I dunno…

[Tim Sean]

Well said Fr'nklin, Church folks never own buildings. The buildings own them.

[Joe]

"Could it be that by owning property and buildings we are sowing the seeds of many of the problems mentioned in your post and these comments?"
I think so because they begin to worship the buildings not God/Christ. There are ton of "musts" (you must do this, attend this, wear this). We had some underprivilaged kids visit our youth group when I first started being a Youth Pastor. They were alittle rough but nice and polite. The church kids didn't want anything to do with them, but these outsiders would attend Sunday School all together. They ranged from 8-17, mostly they were siblings and the little ones were afraid to go to a different class. This lasted a week, a deacon came to me and said, "If they attend here they must follow our rules. They need to be at the apporiate Sunday School class and they must behave during the worship service. Needless to say they didn't come back after that. I wish the Joe I am know was the one there at that time instead of the trying to impress, fresh out of college Joe I was back then.

[skg]

I appreciate your insights on worship. Though my own 'tradition' might be a bit different from yours, your post helped crystalize some things I've been trying to communicate to the folks in my church as their pastor. US churches, almost without fail in my own limited experiences, have tailored as near as possible an exclusively individualist approach to 'church worship' so that our main 'pitch' is 'Don't we have what YOU want?' I'm doubtful we'll ever be able to out-market the world. My own reading of scripture leads me to believe we are a people, that we belong to each other and to God. I think that means that 'church worship', in so far as it genuinely exists, stems from community or the consciousness that I'm here with others. It's the choice to share and enjoy our faith together, to encourage and weep together. If church is merely an event (lights, camera, action!) that people attend and then leave without ever getting tangled up in each other, I'm pretty sure that misses the whole point. I could get the same thing on TV or the radio. Communion might be one of the best examples, where we enjoy the Supper together as part of a larger meal in community (rather than in pew-like rows) and then together reaffirm by eating and drinking the power and presence of Christ in our lives. Just thought you'd like to know that some your comments led to a great discussion and prayer in my church last night, and that I'm hopeful we'll start to be known the way Jesus told us we should be, 'By this all men will know that you are my disciples...'

[Bob Smietana]

Greg

Good post here but a question--are we talking about an ecclesiological problem here or a problem in discipleship/formation, or a theological problem. I'd say it's a theological one--justification without sanctification--so that the focus is on a decision for Christ (saying the salvation prayer) but not the consequences of that decision--how to I submit my life to the way of Jesus.

[Kyle]

My disillusionment with contemporary "worship" music launched to its current stratispheric heights after I one day was really looking at the lyrics to "Heart of Worship" and realized that this song featuring the repeated lines "It's all about you, Jesus" was primarily about me and how I worship, how I'm desperately trying to bless God, how I do this, how I do that, etc. So not only is the song excessively individualistic in its focus, which is reason enough for me to dislike it, but, much worse, it purports to be anti-individualistic while being so based on the individual. It revels in the problem that it supposedly seeks to fix. I don't know Redman's politics, but doing one thing while preaching the exact opposite seems to be a major problem of certain U.S. presidents (I'm thinking of things like No Child Left Behind, Clean Air Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, A Uniter not a Divider, etc.; but come to think of it, I'm not sure which semi-recent president this wouldn't apply to...maybe early Ike because he wasn't really politically-minded yet?). So you'll have to excuse me if I remain a bit cynical about Redman. I'm not sure whether to be mad at him or thankful that he gave me the jolt I needed to free myself from the deep dark pit of contemporary "worship" music.

[Fr'nklin]

I am troubled after reading Kyle's comments. While I want to agree w/ them,I'm not sure I can. Keyle says that it was the lyrics to the song, "Heart of Worship", that contributed to his great disillusionment w/ contemporary "worship" music. I admit to being greatly disillusioned w/ it myself, but I wonder if I/we are correct. Kyle's problem w/ the "Heart of Worship" song was that it "purports to be anit-individualistic while being so based on the individual." I reviewed the songs lyrics and they are intensely personal...but is that wrong? If we were to only sing Psalmnody in our churches, how intensley personal would they be? What about Psalm 51? Much of our hymnody is very much me, my, I centered...at least it is in the hymnbook I scowered today. It seems to me that much of "contemporary worship music" is "personal" because it seems to arise out of personal "worship", etc. Of course, the same could be said of Psalmnody or Hymnody. I'm wondering if we are looking for a problem...and thus, finding one. I am no fan of contemporary worship music, or the current state of the evangelical church...but I'm wondering if some of the problem (much of the problem?) is me...not "them". Deitrich Bonhoeffer's "Life Together" is haunting me...I wonder if I've become the "visionary dreamer" whose dreams/ideals God hates. Am I the proud and pretentious one...not them...

[greg]

Franklin,

I tend to agree that intensely personal songs are fine. The psalms are full of intensely personal reflections. I object to intensely individualistic songs particularly, and even the personal ones if there are no corporate or God-focused ones offered.

[Joe]

Are we talking about mainly worship songs ie Shout to the Lord songs or we talking about general christian song writing?

[Fr'nklin]

I tend to agree w/ you greg, but I'm not sure you're not drawing too fine a line between an "intensely personal song" and "intensely individualistic songs". I think the real problem is more your second point...w/ which I heartily agree...the dirth of corporate/God-focused songs. Where are the songs that at least attempt to match "holy, holy, holy" or "the church's one foundation"? Is it that contemporary worship music is still too young to produce such songs...the repetoir is still too small...or is it that our theologians aren't writing...or thinking...or both!
Joe - i was talking more about songs used in worship.

[Joe]

That's what I thought but I wasn't sure. I think Christian song writing itself is very limited too. When I say that I am meaning that it seems alot of artists might feel held back because they have to live up to a certain standard. Perhaps they feel like they have to be upbeat and happy and have praise worthy lyrics and are unable to express their true feelings. How many songs are out there that express anger, confussion, desperation towards/for God from a Christian artist? I don't know of any and I really hope there are some out there.

[KP]

Greg, could you elaborate a bit more on the difference between "intensly personal" and "intensly individualistic" worship songs? I'm not sure I'm getting it.

[Kyle P.]

Fr'nklin,

I may have been exaggerating at least a bit for effect on how much that one song actually changed my view on things, but what makes me so upset about "Heart of Worship" is that it seems to recognize a general problem that I have with contemporary worship music (i.e., that it is not only personal but focused intensively on the individual, on our desire to have a pleasing and uplifting worship experience (hence the eroticized language in much of the music), as if that individualized experience were the main point, just like any other form of pre-packaged consumer entertainment) but instead of moving past the problem, it adds to the problem, making people think that they in fact are no longer focusing so intensely on themselves and their own experience when in fact that is exactly what they are really doing, and I can't see that as being very worshipful. I don't have a problem with any single song being personal (although I would tend to argue against almost all the ones that are primarily about the individual's own subjective experience), but the problem is very apparent when they ALL are, giving us a sense that what matters most is a person's soul in relation to God instead of the more biblical sense of a community of believers who collectively make up the bride of Christ. I would also argue that this is not only a contemporary phenomenon. It didn't take too long for the Protestant focus on individual interpretation to result in individualistic songs (and yes, I am a Protestant, which I thought I'd mention because I hate it when some Catholics feel the need to point to the Reformation as having screwed everything up), so there are individualistic songs from yesteryear throughout our hymnbooks; it merely seems that the phenomenon is more pronounced today, especially in those places where the hymn tradition (including all the bad and good hymns) has been completely eclipsed by contemporary worship music.

P.S. This same excessive focus on the individual has, in my opinion, led us to interpret much Scripture as applying primarily to individual people rather than to the people of God as a whole (election, anyone?; or, the formulations of limited atonement that I've heard have a very individualistic ring to them).

[Fr'nklin]

Kyle P.,
I think we're pretty much in agreement on this...and much more so since I HAD TO GO TO CHURCH TODAY...(yuk)! Thanks for the clarification...
Peace.