From reknew

Ben Witherington posted this heartfelt reflection on the sudden death of his young daughter. Theology can sometimes be a relatively benign part of your life until something like this strikes without warning. That’s where things really begin to matter. This reminded us of Jessica Kelley’s reflections on the death of her son Henry. These are the voices that ring with authority on the topic of theodicy and suffering and the picture of God that you hold.

From Ben’s blog:

One of the primary reasons I am not a Calvinist and do not believe in such predestinings from the hand of God is (1) because I find it impossible to believe that I am more merciful or compassionate than God. Also, (2) the Biblical portrait of God is that God is pure light and holy love; in him there is no darkness, nothing other than light and love. (3) The words “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away,” from the lips of Job, are not good theology. They’re bad theology. According to Job 1, it was not God, but the Devil who took away Job’s children, health and wealth. God allowed it to happen, but when Job said these words, as the rest of the story shows, he was not yet enlightened about the true nature of where his calamity came from and what God’s will actually was for his life — which was for good, and not for harm.

WHY BEING A CALVINIST IS AWESOME by Jc_Freak

Why Being a Calvinist Is Awesome by Jc_Freak http://www.jcfreak73.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/why-being-calvinist-is-awesome.html

[This is satire. Everything said here is meant to be funny.
I am fully aware that what I am saying is an exaggeration.]

I’ve given up. After much struggling, I’ve finally have been convinced by robust arguments of the Young, Restless and Reformed. Now I can enjoy all of the benefits of my better understanding of the Bible, like:

  1. I get all the cool teachers: I can just enjoy everything Piper, MacArther, and White have to say. Not to mention historically I can claim Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Edwards, Pink, etc. Sure, I may loose leading Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig, John Lennox, and Ravi Zacharias, and I may loose John Wesley, C S Lewis, and all but one of the early church fathers, but its not who they are, or what they teach, but they’re popularity that matters.
  2. Being both proud and humble at the same time: One of the great things about being Calvinist is that no matter how much better, or smarter, or more godly I may be to the other people around me, I don’t have to worry about losing my humility because of how aware I am of God being greater than I am.
  3. Calvinists have their own code: It is fantastic that words like soveriegnty, election, and grace mean something completely different when I use than when the rest of the world uses them. It’s our own code language, and since when was that not fun?
  4. I get to be a serious theologian while only having to learn 5 terms: I can learn TULIP and its basic collorlaries in a couple of days. Who cares that I have not thought out all of the implications. That’s what the cool teachers are for. I can simply be confident that they have answered all the questions that really matter and then just quote them. After all, the Calvinist answer is always the best answer
  5. I’m the only one that’s allowed to claim mystery: It’s only a contradiction if its in someone else’s theology.
  6. Being thoroughly biblical:I care about basing my beliefs solely on the Bible. That is why I only read and quote Calvinist authors.
  7. Balanced theology: Unlike Arminianism, Calvinism carefully balances all of the issues. That is why we have Hypercalvinism on one-side, and Arminianism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Semiaugustinianism, Semipelagianism, and Pelagianism on the other side. We’re smack dab in the middle!
  8. Being against the flesh: We want to believe in free will, because of our sinly impulses. Calvinism shows its integrity of going against those worldly impulses by denying it, unlike Hinduism, Islam, Atheism, Gnosticism, and Plato and Aristotle.
  9. A better name: When was the last time “Calvinist” was confused with a nationality? And it’s recognized by spell check.

I couldn’t think of a 10th reason. Anyone else who can think of a really good 10th reason why being a Calvinist is awesome, please mention it in the comments below.

Let’s play… Oprah or Osteen?

 

Let’s play… Oprah or Osteen in Humor on May 17th, 2013

 

These quotes were taken either from Joel Osteen’s blockbuster bestseller “Your Best Life Now” (and the accompanying study guide) or Marcia Z. Nelson’s insightful analysis of Oprah’s philosophy in her book, “The Gospel According to Oprah.”  See if you can guess if the pastor of the largest church in the US or America’s favorite guru uttered a particular quote.

 

1.  The first step to living at your full potential is to enlarge your vision.

 

2.  If you develop a vision of victory, success, health, abundance, joy, peace and happiness, nothing on earth will be able to hold these things from you.

 

3.  Live your best life.

 

4.  You must concieve it in your heart and mind before you can receive it.

 

5.  I have been beyond blessed.

 

6.  Every day I pass the front of my house, I sing, “Jesus Loves Me.”

 

7.  Thank you.  Two words that can make miracles

 

8.  We have to conceive it on the inside before we’re ever going to receive it on the outside.

 

9.  Today is the only day we have.  We can’t do anything about the past, and we don’t know what the future holds.  But we can live at our full potential right now.

 

10.  The expression of your feelings is like magic.

 

[Todd's note:  I don't find this particularly funny as in ha-ha funny... it's actually rather sad.  That said... take the quiz, and let me know how you do.  The answers will be below...]

 

ANSWER KEY:

 

Joel Osteen’s quotes are 1,2,4,8, and 9
Oprah’s quotes are 3,5,6,7 and 10

 

How’d you do?

 

The 5 Biggest Areas of Conflict for Couples

The 5 Biggest Areas of Conflict for Couples

Drs. Les and Leslie Parrott

BY DRS. LES AND LESLIE PARROTT 
MAY 13, 2013

 

Drs. Les and Leslie Parrott are #1 New York Times best-selling authors of numerous books, includingLove Talk and the award-winning Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts. Their new book The Good Fight: How Conflict Can Bring You Closer releasesApril 22 from Worthy Publishing. VisitLesAndLeslie.com.

 

Conflict is inevitable in marriage, but here’s how to fight well.
One of the most common misconceptions in marriages today is that fighting is a sign of an unhealthy relationship. But is it? Is a healthy marriage really one completely absent of conflict?

As a psychologist (Les) and a marriage and family therapist (Leslie), married since 1984, we don’t claim to have a perfect relationship. We fight—just like every other couple on the planet. But we’ve learned a secret:  There’s a difference between a bad fight and a good fight.

And when a couple learns to fight a good fight, the conflict actually brings them closer.

WE’VE LEARNED A SECRET:  THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BAD FIGHT AND A GOOD FIGHT.

 

All couples generally fight over the same five things: money, sex, work, parenting and housework. Most argue about these five issues over and over again because these are all stressors that speak to our sense of love and fairness.

But you can learn to fight about them in a healthy way. Here are some tools to help you cool down “The Big Five.”

Money

Allow us to say it straight: Money fights between couples are rarely about money. So if you want to minimize a currency conflict, trace it back to the fear that’s fueling it.

Instead of fighting over the amount of money that was spent on who-knows-what, shift the focus toward what really matters: (1) your fear of not having influence in important issues impacting your life, (2) your fear of not having security in your future, (3) your fear of having no respect shown for your values, or (4) your fear of not realizing your dreams.

Sex

To keep sexual grievances down and the marital bedsprings bouncing, we recommend focusing on solving “coordination failure.” It’s a common problem in marriages. The number-one reason people report not having sex in their marriage is “Too tired,” followed closely by “Not in the mood.” Most of the time, that’s code, knowingly or not, for having mismatched sex drives.

So start talking about it. As we write this, we can almost feel you cringing. For most couples, talking about sex is about as comfortable as sleeping in a car. Yet it’s a conversation that’s critically important to aligning your libidos and minimizing your conflicts. When the time is right, when both of you are relaxed and not distracted, ask each other to explain when you feel most eager to head to bed. Your answers may surprise you.

Work

 

We’ve got two words for you: date night. We know. You’ve heard this a thousand times: do a weekly date night or your marriage will suffer. Sounds more like a threat than friendly advice, doesn’t it? But it’s a surefire way to keep career conflict to a minimum.

MARRIAGE IS LIVED BEST WHEN YOU’RE NOT TRYING TO BALANCE THE SCALES.

 

In spite of this frequent advice, the message doesn’t seem to be getting through. Here’s how often married people, aged 25 to 50 with two or more children, have a date night:

  • Once a week: 4 percent
  • Once a month: 21 percent
  • Once every two to three months: 21 percent
  • Once every four to six months: 18 percent
  • Once every seven months or less often: 36 percent

Yikes! We can do better than that, and there’s good reason to do it. The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia recently released a report titled “The Date Night Opportunity.” This study found that husbands and wives who set aside a deliberate time to connect and have fun at least once a week were approximately three and a half times more likely to report being “very happy” in their marriages.

Children

The solution for nearly any parenting conflict is found in getting on the same page and presenting a unified front. Otherwise, your kids play you against each other and add fuel to the parenting fire. Conflict decreases as teamwork increases. It may not be easy to agree with your spouse on the rules and standards you are willing to enforce with your kids. That’s why the first order of business is to iron out differences behind closed doors.

Don’t try to solve your parenting squabbles in the moment—while the kids enjoy the show. The time for presenting your ideas and negotiating trade-offs is when the two of you are alone. Once you reach agreement, stick together. When parents present a united front, there’s no room for recriminating I-told-you-so’s.

Chores

Let’s face it—most housework fights come about because one spouse is keeping score. That’s a bad idea. The scales of marriage are always in flux, and you’re only setting yourselves up for turmoil if you’ve installed a figurative scoreboard in your relationship. Using the division of labor approach does away with all that.

Trina, for example, is better and faster than Dan at both doing the dishes and tidying up around the house. In fact, she does it in half the time it takes him. Given this fact, does it make sense for Dan to do either of these tasks? Not really. What does make sense is for Dan to refresh the water bowl for their pet and prepare their child’s room for bedtime. He’s also quicker at organizing and tracking their finances. He does it in half the time it would take Trina. He’s also pretty good at ironing his own shirts.

You get the idea. It’s simple. Quit trying to divide the household chores down the middle. Marriage is lived best when you’re not trying to balance the scales.

Conflict is a fact of life, but it doesn’t have to be a bad one. When you are your spouse hit up against it next—and you will—go ahead and fight it out, but fight it with the goal to grow closer, to understand him or her better and to love each other well even in the midst of disagreement.

Adapted with permission from The Good Fight by Drs. Les & Leslie Parrott © 2013. Published by Worthy Publishing, a division of Worthy Media, Inc., Brentwood, TN. 

Missing the Mission: Looking for the Right Results While Loving the Wrong Things

Thursday May 9, 2013
Missing-The-Target.jpg

All churches love certain things. Some love fellowship, some worship, some prayer. Those are good loves. Some are neutral loves. Some are not. Other churches love their building, their history, or their strategy.

Those can be good or bad, depending on what we mean by love and how we value those things. But, there are some things churches love that hurt their mission and hinder their call. Here are three I’ve observed from my time working with thousands of churches.

1. Too many churches love past culture more than their current context.

It’s remarkable, but I’ve said it many times: if the fifties ever came back, many churches are ready. (Or the 1600s, or the boomer 80s, depending on your church denomination, I guess.)

There is nothing wrong with the fifties, except that we don’t live in those times anymore. We must love those who live here, now– not pine away for the way things used to be. The cultural sensibilities of the fifties are long gone in most of the United States. The values and norms of our current context are drastically different and continue to change. The task of contextualization is paramount to the mission of the church because we are called to understand and speak to those around us in a meaningful way. We can learn much from the Apostle Paul’s example recorded in Acts 17:16-34 here.

So, a church on mission– in this time and place– engages the people around it. Yes, in some ways, it resembles its context– a biblically faithful church living in its cultural concept. But, if your church loves a past era more than the current mission, it loves the wrong things.

2. Too many churches love their comfort more than their mission.

The fact is, your church probably needs to be less focused on what makes it happy and more focused on what pleases Jesus. This is an easy trap to fall into because it happens very subtly.

The fact is that most churches have worked very hard to get to a place where congregational customers are happy– their needs are met. The problem is that we are not called to cater to customers. We are called to equip co-laborers. When we win the affections of those inside our circles, it becomes hard to pull away from the affirmation we receive. Again, this only becomes a problem when the affirmation of those on the inside works to the detriment of our mission to those on the outside. It is a lot easier to settle down with the people who are like us than to reach the foreigner or alien among us.

So, a church does not exist for the comfort of its people. Actually, the Bible reminds us again and again that we are to “provoke one another to love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24), to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), and more. But, if your church loves its comfort more than caring for others, it loves the wrong things.

3. Too many churches love their traditions more than their children.

How can you tell? Well, they love how they do church, but it does not relate to their own children and grandchildren. Far too often church leaders, in an effort to protect the traditions of their congregations, draw lines in the sand on non-essential issues.

This is not to say that “tradition” is wrong. It depends on how you define it, but I think most will know what I mean. As Jaroslav Pelikan has said, “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” Churches that love tradition that way will choose their traditions over their children every time. Too often churches allow their traditions to hinder their ability to humbly assess their effectiveness of their mission. Moreover, they allow their traditions to trump the future trajectory of their demographic. I know of several young pastors who have been exiled from their local congregations because they didn’t fit the mold of what had always been the ethos of the leadership. Sometimes this is because inpatient pastors try and force change too quickly. Other times it’s because settled churches resist change so forcefully.

Undoubtedly, there are always times to defend the traditional stances of essential doctrines in the local church. But we should not have a cultural elitism that hinders passing the torch to a new generation of leaders. If your church loves the way you do church more than your children, it loves the wrong things.

It’s time to evaluate your church.

Love is good– and everyone wants a loving church. However, loving the wrong things leads you the wrong way. Loving what is good, including our context, Jesus’ mission, and the next generation (to name a few things), moves the church in the right direction. The church should be always reforming, that is, humbly looking at itself and assessing their ability to reach people with the good news of Jesus. Sadly, many of the people Jesus devoted his time to would not feel welcome in our churches.

What about your church? What does its posture, its behavior, its practices, and activities communicate to the community you are in? I think all of us want to understand the culture and community we are ministering in so that we can communicate the gospel with absolute clarity. To do this we need to ask ourselves the hard but needed questions.

  • Who are we reaching?
  • Are we primarily reaching people who are like us?
  • Are we primarily reaching people who are already believers?
  • Are we primarily reaching people who understand Christian subculture and taboos?
  • What about the people who don’t have a church background?
  • What about the people who are unfamiliar with Christian beliefs?
  • What about the people who don’t understand church subculture and behavioral taboos?

To say that we are unable to reach the lost because of our traditions or preferences is simply unacceptable and antithetical to the mission of God.

Best accessible bible study/commentary series

 

I read a lot of commentaries from ones that are highly technical into Biblical language nuances, to those that are hyper critical, and again to those that are very “practical”.  I like to read from “liberal”, “conservative” and everything in-between.  This I find necessary to really get into a text and eventually give a talk that is as faithful as possible.  The talk also is submerged in prayer, a robust experience of God, and a high view of the Scriptures for it to become anointed proclamation of the life-changing Gospel of Jesus.

We also of course encourage daily (5x week) reading of scripture and family devotions at least once or more times a week.

Family devotions are best (in my experience) part of when we eat together.  That does not happen every night, but several a week for sure.

One of the best ways to do this is simply have someone read a passage of scripture and devotional book.

This year my family started anew using N.T. Wrights “…For Everyone” commentary series.

The series has the Bible text in the VERY easy reading translation he has done himself, followed by a modern story or illustration and then some of the best common language comments I’ve read by a Biblical scholar for ordinary understanding and application.

I would recommend these for personal devotional reading and study, for family devotions and for small groups to use. 

For small group use it would be helpful if everyone bought the commentary, read ahead of time, and noted questions and quotes that spoke to them.  Leaders can add leading questions too.  Follow up with application – so what for you/us?  Where is the Holy Spirit really prompting you?

The Unnecessary Tragedy of Artists and the Church

I haven’t reposted an Internet Monk post/re-post for a while – THIS ONE however will break that streak.

Len Wilson: The Unnecessary Tragedy of Artists and the Church

7MAYby 

st james church

Note from CM: A regular reader emailed me about an article that impressed him, encouraging me to consider it for IM. So I went to Len Wilson’s blog and was likewise stimulated by his words and insights. I have added Len’s site to our Blogroll, and recommend that you check it out. He introduces today’s piece by saying, “This post is a tribute to my friend Dr. Paul Bonneau and a call for the church universal to understand the soul of the artist. I wrote it in response to the news that he’d passed away.”

Thanks, Len, for this fine contribution, and the permission to use it.

* * *

The Unnecessary Tragedy of Artists and the Church
by Len Wilson

It’s these little things, they can pull you under.
Live your life filled with joy and wonder.
I always knew this altogether thunder
was lost in our little lives.
- REM

My desire to create a space in the church for artists took on a new meaning today. A friend and colleague from my former church has unexpectedly passed away.

Paul was a pan-seared spirit, a conductor and musician perhaps born out of time. He was a dapper dresser, quick with a compliment or a snarky comment at my choice of shirt or shoes. Once he picked a piece of lint off my shoulder and told me I was too nice looking a person to walk around with fuzz. Every week in our worship meeting, Paul sat in his corner chair with coffee, mostly quiet but quick to bellow at someone’s gallows humor. When pressed he would engage in conversations that poked below the surface of church life, such as the relationship of faith and doubt.

Like any artist, Paul believed in honesty. It scared some pastors and churchy folks, but fellow artists among our staff and volunteer cadre of worship planners valued his low filter for lies and stupidity. Though I don’t know this for sure, I think that Paul struggled with depression. If so, it was perhaps related to the fact that artists abhor truth dissonance, and often have a hard time living in the suspended chord that is the body of Christ.

Of course, our cynical age covers truth in a vacuous veneer of detached irony. Paul was brilliantly maddening for his insistence on naming the mockery of much of our attempts at playing church. He had perhaps the purest junk filter of any artist I’ve ever known. And this was his tragedy, because while many of us are artists who can’t afford unfiltered honesty, Paul could accept no alternative.

Dishonesty is a subset of ugliness, and ugliness is an affliction to the artist. Because sin is ugliness, an artist who follows Jesus lives a wounded life, yearning for connection to the wholeness and truth of a Holy God, yet disconnected by the darkness within. We are all saints and we are all sinners.

This potent mixture, this “outrageous humanity,” as Pat Conroy calls it, vexes the church. Consider the film release Don Miller’s biopic about searching for faith, Blue Like Jazz, which while in production received some complaints from church leaders. It seems that some find the ambiguity of a search for faith troubling.

To use Plato’s virtues as oversimplified categories, people who want to respond to art with argument are Truth types. They seek the resolution of a right answer. They’re convergent. Artists, or to use another platonic virtue, Beauty types, are comfortable with mystery. They are divergent. Paul did not need a final answer to know the truth of something.

The church tries to treat the artist’s affliction, and the need for honesty is indeed an affliction, with analysis and apologetics, which is like taking a laxative for a flesh wound. They’re different parts to the body.

Some Truth types fear that to acknowledge sin is to condone sin, never recognizing their fear perpetuates sin by creating a fortress around Jesus. Beauty types want to explore our humanity, and through it to find a deeper truth than a surface set of facts.

There are also Goodness types, who live between these two poles, more concerned with what is loving than what is correct. When Paul and I worked together at Trietsch, our worship team had a healthy mix of all three. One of the great moments that arose from our mix, and there were many, was the Sunday in worship we hosted Ron Hall and Denver Moore of the number one New York Times bestseller, Same Kind of Different As Me. The book recounts the true story of a wealthy art patron who befriended a homeless man, and the changed life each man discovered. That formerly homeless man, Denver Moore, gave a classic call to Goodness in our worship service when he said, “Churches in America are full of people studyin’. What we need is less studyin’ and more doin’.”

The church needs all three. We as people are built for all three.

 

St James DomeYet the church has traditionally served Truth types best, and Goodness types second best, and Beauty types the worst. For centuries, artists have been finding one another as refugees in a wilderness of systematic theological thinking. It’s easy to retreat behind a screen door mesh of doctrine and moral code. We in the church think we’re safe there, protected from profane elements. But of course the screen door not only fails to protect us but is invisible to those on the outside, who stand in the rain and look with dismissive incredulity through our porous arguments.

Beauty opens the screen door. It invites people in from the rain, but it’s dangerous, because it exposes us church people to the elements. We get wet. We are reminded of life, and for many of us, it’s painful. Beauty is powerful and threatening. Most in the church fear it. And as I mourn the passing of my friend and colleague, our ecclesial deficiency of Beauty has taken on an increased urgency.

My father, a retired pastor, is a Beauty, and is in many ways representative of our age. I sensed his undiagnosed introspection throughout my childhood. Most of the time he kept it hidden underneath a cloak of Truth and Goodness. The cloak fit him alright, but occasionally I saw him take it off. My father is not a pianist, and didn’t doodle or play much for fun. Yet every once in a while he would sit down at our upright and recall a story through Stardust, or I Left My Heart in San Francisco. When he played, I heard a different person, one that I didn’t know. If only for a few minutes, he opened his screen door. Growing up, I failed to understand what those songs meant. He played them with a melancholy that even today makes my heart ache. I never thought to question how someone who supposedly didn’t play the piano could play these two songs so wonderfully.

My father wrote. He completed multiple novels and sent them into some agents and publishing houses in big manila envelopes with SASEs tucked inside. After he received rejection letters, he put the keyboard away. Later, I asked him about the novels, and he said that he wasn’t sure what had happened to them.

He also painted. I have a couple of his prints hanging in my house. One is an oil of a rusted out shell of a pickup, abandoned in a field and partially obscured by tall grass and a broken wooden fence. Though unable to articulate any reason for it, I liked that painting in my room. Now I look at it and see an artist, abandoned in a field, never given wheels to find expression.

Dad was surrounded by a church culture of Truth and Goodness. He was never told it was good to be a Beauty. The most important voices in his life told him that to be a good Christian, he had to learn the proper Truth and do the proper Goodness. Such is a tragically disaffirming life, forced to operate by disingenuous virtues.

Of course, people have their own stories, apart from the systemic environment in which they live. Yet I wonder if this same dynamic affected Paul, and occurs en masse whenever the church stands between pillars of Truth and Goodness, forcing Beauty types to watch from afar.

It’s all about soul
It’s all about knowing what someone is feeling.
- Billy Joel

I do not aim to disaffirm the need for Truth and Goodness. We as God’s creatures and as the Body of Christ need all three. But modern, western culture values Truth above all others, while Goodness has had its moments and appears to be on a bit of a comeback. But Beauty runs a distant third, and has since the Reformers threw out the icons five hundred years ago.

Each of us is primarily one of these three virtues – Truth, Goodness, and Beauty – and secondarily one of the three as well. I am a Beauty, then a Truth. My wife is a Goodness, then a Beauty. Perhaps in this typology you see your own primary virtue.

Jesus has another way to refer for these virtues. When asked about the entirety of the Law, he condensed down 613 prescriptions into a stunning set of two simple expressions. The first acknowledges these virtues. When Jesus commands us to love the Lord our God with all of our mind, heart, and soul, he is affirming our need for Truth, Goodness and Beauty, all three.

While Truth and Goodness are doing just fine, the church needs to encourage experience and personal affect within the context of healthy spiritual growth. We in the Church are great at loving God with our mind. We have the ability to do great things for others with our heart. But we still don’t know what to do with our soul. This is tragic, because artists don’t have to live tortured lives.

I grieve my lost colleague and friend. The best way I know to honor Paul and other artists who suffer in and out of the church is to call for the church to learn to embrace Beauty.

UPDATE: I further explore the typology of Truth, Goodness and Beauty, and its relationship to personality, in the post Six Ways to Know Yourself and Others Better.

Are you in a life-giving church or a religious club?

If you’re church does not preach the parts of Jesus’ message that cause you to be upset or scandalized from time to time (See Luke 7:23) you’re not in a Christian church – but a religious club whose highest purpose is your butt in a seat and dollars in their business. It may be anesthetizing you against the beautiful call and kingdom of god in Jesus. It’s time to go deeper dear friends! Jesus is calling. I probably shouldn’t speak the truth…

‘we are aware that the (Biblical) text is in fact more radical and more offensive and more dangerous than any of us, liberal or conservative…the Biblical conversation in the church could be very different if pastors were able to begin with the awareness that the text is too offensive for the people, but it also too offensive for the pastor, because it is the living Word of God, and it pushes always beyond where we want to go or be.” -W.B. Pg 37 “The Word Militant: Preaching a Decentering Word.”

Worship – Getting it Right

Shel – I’m sure I posted this before from James KA Smith – but I am reposting below with the new additions he has added.

Oh well we are nice in SD but a little behind the curve - particularly in the church world. To avoid the 90s mistakes and crash I recommend Jamie’s book, Desiring the Kingdom and also Renovation of the Church by Ken Carlson and Mike Lueken (or simply the Book of Acts and 1 Corinthians ).  If you go to a church “to simply take in the show” you are indeed “going” to church – but not becoming “church.”   The level of actual engagement of the church in worship and prayer is VERY low in the show-model. This is BECAUSE the attractional 90s liturgy doesn’t aim to engage – just give a short emo-fix to get you there, social-media buzz then, and come back with enough friends that when you reject this faith the show can still go on.  None of this is making you a mature, worshipping, jesus-centered disciple.   This should put the fear of god in any leader of such a thing.  This creates people who leave church forever after a few years of being formed into a consumer of a religious show. 

Jamie nails it:

An Open Letter to Praise Bands

Dear Praise Band,

I so appreciate your willingness and desire to offer up your gifts to God in worship. I appreciate your devotion and celebrate your faithfulness–schlepping to church early, Sunday after Sunday, making time for practice mid-week, learning and writing new songs, and so much more. Like those skilled artists and artisans that God used to create the tabernacle (Exodus 36), you are willing to put your artistic gifts in service to the Triune God.
So please receive this little missive in the spirit it is meant: as an encouragement to reflect on the practice of “leading worship.” It seems to me that you are often simply co-opted into a practice without being encouraged to reflect on its rationale, its “reason why.” In other words, it seems to me that you are often recruited to “lead worship” without much opportunity to pause and reflect on the nature of “worship” and what it would mean to “lead.”
In particular, my concern is that we, the church, have unwittingly encouraged you to simply import musical practices into Christian worship that–while they might be appropriate elsewhere–are detrimental to congregational worship. More pointedly, using language I first employed in Desiring the Kingdom, I sometimes worry that we’ve unwittingly encouraged you to import certain forms of performance that are, in effect, “secular liturgies” and not just neutral “methods.” Without us realizing it, the dominant practices of performance train us to relate to music (and musicians) in a certain way: as something for our pleasure, as entertainment, as a largely passive experience. The function and goal of music in these “secular liturgies” is quite different from the function and goal of music in Christian worship.
So let me offer just a few brief axioms with the hope of encouraging new reflection on the practice of “leading worship”:
1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship. Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers. (Shel – On the other hand if those leading the worship are SO low volume that also discourages the church to join their voices – a good middle is vital.)
2. If we, the congregation, can’t sing along, it’s not worship. In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and “be creative,” offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can’t sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And whileyou may be worshiping with your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.
3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, it’s not worship. I know it’s generally not your fault that we’ve put you at the front of the church. And I know you want to model worship for us to imitate. But because we’ve encouraged you to basically import forms of performance from the concert venue into the sanctuary, we might not realize that we’ve also unwittingly encouraged a sense that you are the center of attention. And when your performance becomes a display of your virtuosity–even with the best of intentions–it’s difficult to counter the temptation to make the praise band the focus of our attention. When the praise band goes into long riffs that you might intend as “offerings to God,” we the congregation become utterly passive, and because we’ve adopted habits of relating to music from the Grammys and the concert venue, we unwittingly make you the center of attention. I wonder if there might be some intentional reflection on placement (to the side? leading from behind?) and performance that might help us counter these habits we bring with us to worship.
Please consider these points carefully and recognize what I am not saying. This isn’t just some plea for “traditional” worship and a critique of “contemporary” worship. Don’t mistake this as a defense of pipe organs and a critique of guitars and drums (or banjos and mandolins). My concern isn’t with style, but with form: What are we trying to do when we “lead worship?” If we are intentional about worship as a communal, congregational practice that brings us into a dialogical encounter with the living God–that worship is not merely expressive but also formative–then we can do that with cellos or steel guitars, pipe organs or African drums.

Postscript to “An Open Letter to Praise Bands”

So, I guess my little “Open Letter to Praise Bands” generated some interest. I’m glad that it could be a catalyst or foil for some intentional reflection on thehow of Christian worship. I won’t even attempt to address the array of responses it has generated. I’m content to let some misreadings spin themselves out. So I’m not out to police the ways I’ve been misunderstood.

However, I do think it’s important to name an issue in the background that affects how we can have this conversation: not all Christians share the same theology of worship. Indeed, my concern is that some sectors of North American Christianity don’t have much of a theology of worship at all. Many of us–including many congregations–have only an implicit understanding of what worship is, and we have not always made that explicit, nor have we subjected our assumptions to rigorous biblical and theological evaluation.
It is my passion for theological intentionality about worship that generated my book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. It’s not fair to ask those who read a blog post to read an entire book, but I would invite those who both agreed and those who disagreed with my “Open Letter” to consider Desiring the Kingdom as a fuller articulation of the theology of worship behind my criticisms.
Many of the negative reactions to my missive stem from a fundamentally different understanding of what worship is. That means we are working from fundamentally different starting points. So when someone thinks that I “misunderstand” what’s happening in worship, actually I just disagree with the assumptions behind such worship.
I think this is why some have missed two crucial points in my “Open Letter”–points that were admittedly touched on just briefly. Let me reiterate them here:
1. Worship is not only expressive, it is also formative. It is not only how we express our devotion to God, it is also how the Spirit shapes and forms us to bear God’s image to the world. This is why the form of worship needs to be intentional: worship isn’t just something that we do; it does something to us. And this is why worship in a congregational setting is a communal practice of a congregation by which the Spirit grabs hold of us. How we worship shapes us, and how we worship collectively is an important way of learning to be the body of Christ. (For a helpful account of how our congregational practice of singing embodies theoneness of the body of Christ, see Steve Guthrie’s marvelous chapter, “The Wisdom of Song.”)
2. Because worship is formative, and not merely expressive, that means other cultural practices actually function as “competing” liturgies, rivals to Christian worship. In Desiring the Kingdom, I analyze examples of such “secular liturgies,” including the mall, the stadium, and the university. The point is that such loaded cultural practices are actually shaping our loves and desires by the very form of the practice, not merely by the “content” they offer. If we aren’t aware of this, we can unwittingly adopt what seem to be “neutral” or benign practices without recognizing that they are liturgies that come loaded with a rival vision of “the good life.” If we adopt such practices uncritically, it won’t matter what “content” we convey by them, the practices themselves are ordered to another kingdom. And insofar as we are immersed in them, we are unwittingly mis-shaped by the practices.
Again, there’s much more to be said about this, and a blog isn’t the venue. I do invite those who have been prompted to think about these matters to consider Desiring the Kingdom as a way to continue the conversation.
Much, much more could be said. But let me stop here, and please receive this as the encouragement it’s meant to be. I would love to see you continue to offer your artistic gifts in worship to the Triune God who is teaching us a new song.
Most sincerely,
Jamie

 

Stuart Murray on Institutional Anabaptism

“All movements tend to become institutionalized in time, and Anabaptism is no exception.  The vibrant and radical missionary movement of the first generation gradually morphed into the settled denominational life of later generations.  Apostles and prophets gave way to bishops and pastors.  The commitment to pacifism degenerated into passivity.  One symptom of this is reluctance to allow leaders to lead and an often obsessive commitment to ‘good process,’…which reduces progress to a snail’s pace.  A Mennonite friend says that ‘process is the Mennonite drug of choice.” – Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist, Herald Press, p. 166

 

HT: http://abnormalanabaptist.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/stuart-murray-on-institutional-anabaptism/?utm_source=feedly Robert Martin