Day two began with nearly 60 minutes of a very emotionally manipulative "praise and worship" time complete with emotional angst, furled eyebrows, tears and guided reflection about what God is 'speaking in your heart' about the things 'you need to change' culminating in an exercise challenging all of us to write down what we 'experienced' during the worship time.
Here are my answers to that exercise.
I experienced ear splitting sissy girly oprahfied 7/11 songs and the complete anger that is stirred up whenever a pastor treats worship time as a group therapy session. I experienced the righteous anger that is kindled whenever I hear someone claim that God is speaking to them and they 'share' what God told them as if that is on par with the word of God.
I experienced the sheer frustration and the all engulfing feeling that I am going to crawl out of my skin if I have to listen to another minute of a pastor speaking in sappy therapeutic tones while the keyboardist plays softly in the background. How did a group therapy, emotionally manipulative 'worship' experience become the normal and predominate view of what worship is?
Personally, I barely heard enough Biblical truth in this morning's 'worship experience' that I could even say amen to yet alone claim that I actually was worshiping the One True God.
My experience was the complete opposite experience of 99.9% of the people in attendance at the conference. Are there any who would dare tell me that my experience wasn't valid? Are there any who would dare tell me that my experience wasn't from God? If you would dare tell me that my experience wasn't from God then I would like you to provide me with the Biblical passages that support this pervasive paradigm of worship as an 'experience'.
It is time for people to challenge this 'worship' paradigm. This paradigm puts the emphasis on the 'experience'. That is the WRONG emphasis.
---
The entire opening session of today's Reveal Conference was all about the worship experience. So far no data from the survey was presented to back this up. I heard a lot of anecdotal information but I seriously doubt that their survey shows that vacuous 7/11 praise songs performed as part of a weekend rock and roll show is what moves people along the 'spiritual growth' continuum.
---
Session on Creating Ownership
Practices.
1. Empower people to 'be the church'. (I thought the Holy Spirit empowers people, not pastors.)
Commodity vs. Identity
Ownership vs. Church as Commodity
One of the pastors on the stage requires members to sign 9 Covenants.
2. Equip them to Succeed.
3. Hold people accountable
---
How do you get people to volunteer for putting their faith into action (serve)
1. Set the bar high for serving Church AND Community needs.
2. Build a bridge to your local community.
3. Make serving a platform for the Gospel.
1) The dedication of the the re-built wall - Nehemiah 12:43...the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off.
2) Isaiah's vision - Isaiah 6:4 - At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
3) King David's celebration of the return of the ark - 2 Samuel 6:16 - ...and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD....
4) Christ's triumphal entry - Matthew 21:9 - And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
5) John's vision of the martyrs - Revelation 6:10 - and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true....
It appears all these events were celebrated loudly and emotionally.
I believe in the Holy Spirit's ministry of conviction, something those of you who mock "listening to what God is speaking to your heart" obviously do not.
You never did report exactly what songs were being sung. What is the evidence that supports your conclusion that it was all me-centered? Besides the fact that it was loud, repetitious and emotional.....
Posted by: Miriam J. Nard | October 16, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Miriam, I think that this verse ties in with your statements nicely...
Luke 19:36-40
And as he rode along, they spread their cloaks on the road. As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.”
Posted by: akira Kurosawa | October 16, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Chris,
But many of your complaints with the conference were very simply opinions
For instance... about musical styles. You complained about the shallow music, and yet a good percentage of those songs were hymns like "Come Thou Fount", "Be Thou My Vision", "Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee", "Amazing Grace" "All Creatures of Our God and King". Perhaps you didn't appreciate the style they were sung in, but it doesn't make them sappy oprah-fied 7/11 music, I would contend, and certainly not shallow. I don't care what the style or context, "Come Thou Font" knock me out. What a deep hymn! You wrote [I am so done with rock and roll praise bands]... Fine, it's not your thing. That alone does not make it wrong, and I'm sorry you can't appreciate contemporary musical expressions of worship. I believe your life in Christ is potentially poorer for that, and I'm sorry. Perhaps if all the music had been done with an organ or orchestra... in a tried, true, and out-of-date style that was once rich, authentic, contemporary, and vital (and even controversial).
You complained about the volume, which was well within reasonable levels (I found it a bit quiet actually) for this kind of music in this size room. I am a Worship Arts Pastor and a former Audio/Video professional, and I can tell you that the sound levels were well below the norm at Willow (I think they were trying to be sensitive to more "traditional" pastors). From my relatively deep experience in this matter, I think their level was quite safe and reasonable. If you had actual discomfort, I suggest to you that it was not the volume, but that you may have some hearing issues that you should have looked at (seriously). I did not bring my dB meter, but again, I suspect that the max sound levels were at least 5 or 10 db below the maximum "safe" levels for music at such a length and in such a building.
You also complained about the lack of clerical attire. What does such a modern construct as a clerical collar. have to do with the proper exposition of God's truth. Again, I feel that is a cultural opinion of yours that you appear to be encouraging folks to elevate almost to the level of doctrine, if not to that level.
You do a lot of complaining about the over-emotional worship of some of the presenters and the worship teams. I actually agree that over-emotionalizing worship is a dangerous thing, and I would not myself go as "far" as the gateway team did on Tuesday morning. But surely loving God with all my heart soul mind and strength involves my emotions as well. Again, I have to tell you I think that you are elevating a cultural difference there.
You wrote [It was refreshing to hear one of the foremost pioneers of Seeker-Sensitive methods repudiating those methods.] He never said that. You inferred. Is he realizing we need to change some things about how we engage seekers and believers? Yes. But you and several in the "discernment" camp seem to think he's saying "we were wrong all those years." Not what has been said. I haven't seen that in any of the REVEAL literature.
You wrote [Comment - This messes with the organic nature of the Body of Christ. Are there really only 4 types of people in church? This may be a new and dangerous form of reductionism.] Greg explained that that is merely the way they divided the respondents statistically. I find again that you (and others) take statements from this study and change them to suit your pre-existing condemnation of seeker-sensitive church models.
I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I'd love for you to present your findings in a more balanced and, dare I say, honest fashion. Thanks so much for inviting this honest dialogue in the comments on your post. It's a very good start.
Posted by: Peter Hamm | October 16, 2008 at 03:02 PM
I just heard from the Horton blog about you blogging on this event. That's gotta be tough. I look forward to reading.
Posted by: Chris | October 16, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Miriam,
Do you realize that only 2 of the citations you reported record regular worship services. Yet those are descriptions of what is happening in heaven, and don't record emotionalism.
The other events may have had elements of worship, but were not worship services, or a reflection of what happened in the temple on a regular basis. I am quite thankful we do not take our cue for worship from the entrance of the Ark to Jerusalem, as I don't think God or my congregation wants me dancing up the center isle in the nude. of course we Lutherans do like to sing Hosanna in the highest when Christ makes his triumphal entry into our sanctuaries Sunday after Sunday defeating yet again sin death and the devil in our lives, by giving us the forgiveness of sins in his body and blood. But such a solemn, and great event is hardly done justice with a rock and roll welcome.
Posted by: Bror Erickson | October 16, 2008 at 04:05 PM
I have one question for those who view Willow Creek as a model church: On what scriptural basis can they have a female pastor?
Also, what is the theological basis by which they base their definition of a disciple of Christ? A disciple is defined by what they are taught and believe first, not what they do. In Church in Rome as noted for their faith, not for their actions. This is mark of the true church. True goods works are the result of true faith and are a natural outcome of faith.
Posted by: Steve Newell | October 16, 2008 at 04:09 PM
listen, I agree there may be some things that you and I don't agree with Willow on as far as the emphasis they put on certain elements of their worship service, but you are being so divisive and that is never pleasing to God. They are not worshipping Satan. Last I checked they are seriously trying to live the way God has called us to live. and whether you like it or not there will be a day when people from Willow, Mars Hill, Saddleback, Capitol Hill, your church, my church and thousands of other believers across the world will all worship together. You might as well give it shot now.
Posted by: Micah | October 16, 2008 at 04:10 PM
Peter,
You write:
"For instance... about musical styles. You complained about the shallow music, and yet a good percentage of those songs were hymns like "Come Thou Fount", "Be Thou My Vision", "Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee", "Amazing Grace" "All Creatures of Our God and King". Perhaps you didn't appreciate the style they were sung in, but it doesn't make them sappy oprah-fied 7/11 music, I would contend, and certainly not shallow.'
Hmmm, why is it that church musicians don't work in Hollywood? Probably because they are the only musicians I know of that don't realize that in changing the music style you change the mood, and you change the message of the song. Of course this is not true of all church musicians, but the people who maintain that you can change the music style and not change the message tend to be church musicians. Hollywood knows better. Music actually communicates at a much deeper level then the lyrics by themselves. The polka mass is the butt of jokes for a reason.
Perhaps the problem was that Chris could neither recognize the hymns or hear the words because the music was changed. Of course he didn't say that all the songs were 7/11 songs either. He merely complained about the ones that were.
Posted by: Bror Erickson | October 16, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Micah,
"listen, I agree there may be some things that you and I don't agree with Willow on as far as the emphasis they put on certain elements of their worship service, but you are being so divisive and that is never pleasing to God."
Are you sure? God himself is pretty divisive. Seems to care quite a bit about what is said in his name, and even how it is presented. Might read Galatians again.
Posted by: Bror Erickson | October 16, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Bror,
As someone who has been a Christian for over two and a half decades, I found absolutely nothing "changed" in the message of the songs that were hymns done in a contemporary style at REVEAL. On the contrary, a couple of them were deeply moving, in their original meaning, because the idiom was reflective of my time and my culture, rather than someone who has been dead for hundreds of years.
You may dislike certain styles of music for one reason or another, and I am thankful that you will no doubt be able to find a way to worship in a style that suits you, but that is hardly anything close to a scriptural or theological reason for styles you find fault with to be inherently sinful or wrong, which seems to be what you are implying.
By the way, I'm curious to know if you are joining in the critique of the music at this conference because you attended, or merely because you find fault with louder, contemporary forms of music in worship in general. I'm genuinely curious to know on what basis you argue that the hymns I referenced, as sung at the REVEAL conference, are changed in their meaning.
Steve Newell writes [A disciple is defined by what they are taught and believe first, not what they do.] So, it is merely intellectual assent that makes me a disciple? This gets at the heart of the common contemporary error that following Christ is merely an intellectual excercise and a transaction, almost a business transaction (this was discussed in what I feel was great detail in the last talk of the conference, by John Ortberg, by the way). Saving faith is that transaction AND so much more, as we learn from James.
The very word mathetes means basically a "learner/follower". We are told by Christ Himself that we will be defined by the world by how we love one another. So how is your definition more biblical?
Posted by: Peter Hamm | October 16, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Peter,
Actually I was not am not in attendance myself. I am joining the conversation or critique because yes I generally despise the way the gospel message is trivialized with modern music forms that fail to carry the weight of the cross. Quite frankly I like a "style" of worship that fosters unity in the church so that Grandparents, parents and children from different cultures, tastes, and walks of life can come together worship and commune together. I find very few people over the age of 70 that really appreciate the contemporary styles and loud music. On the flip side, I don't tend to listen to hymns in my car, but I do appreciate the music at church. I like a "style" of worship that reminds me I am in the presence of God who created the world and me, and when I sinned that God died for me. I don't like to be reminded of the world outside when I am worshiping.
However your answer to Steve has exposed a much deeper divide than music styles. I suppose the truth of it all is that what we believe finds expression in how we worship or the "worship styles' we choose. I do not see where Steve equated following christ with a mere intellectual exercise. In fact I don't think you will find Lutherans talking about faith as if it is any sort of exercise, intellectual or otherwise. Faith is a gift from God, a work of the Holy Spirit on us, it is totally passive, infants have it, mentally handicapped have it, intellectual geniuses have it, when they hear the word of God and are baptized. It is not a business transaction it is a gift, lest anyone should boast. Lutherans believe that intellectual assent is actually impossible. "I believe I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in God or come to him...." (Luther Small Catechism 3 article.) What makes us disciples is baptism, Matthew 28.
our worship reflects this, In that we don't try to manipulate an emotional high and call it the work of the Holy Spirit, when we had that same high last week drinking beer in a bar and listening to a blues band. Rather we read the word, proclaim Christ, and know that the Holy Spirit has been at work among us because where the gospel, the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed in Christ Jesus, then the Holy Spirit is with it.
Posted by: Bror Erickson | October 16, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Peter,
There is no "transaction" is our salvation. In order to have a transaction, there must two parties to transact. One party, man, is dead in their sins and one party, God, is alive. We receive the gift of salvation without any action on our own. Even the ability to believe, faith, is a gift as well (Eph 2:1-10). The result of our salvation is that we are now to do good works in Christ.
I can do no good works on my own that will please God. If I do any good work, it is 100% God doing. Since Christ is the vine and we are the branches, we can do nothing without God.
Good works are the result of faith. It is the fruit. The Church is called to make disciples by teaching them. In Acts 2:42, we see the church as growing through Word and Sacrament.
Posted by: Steve Newell | October 16, 2008 at 05:39 PM
And there Bror is why I am no longer a Lutheran. Lutherans believe:
"Faith is a gift from God, a work of the Holy Spirit on us, it is totally passive..."
The totally passive, attitude is what is killing the Lutheran church in America. Yes, faith is a gift from God, but I bear some responsibility (notice I am not using the word credit, lest you think I am boasting) for if I accept Christ's gift or not. But Lutheran teaching says that I am not responsible.
From Peter's statements:
"I can do no good works on my own that will please God. If I do any good work, it is 100% God doing."
So if anything I do that is good, is really God's doing and anything I do wrong is my fault, most Lutherans take the middle path and do nothing (but show up to church once in a while).
Which is why 10% of the people in a Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod do 90% of the work. Which is why the LCMS church can't find enough pastors to fill it's churches and those that are there are leaving or retiring in droves. Which is why the enrollment in the LCMS is down again this year, as it has been for the last 15 years. And then you have people so concerned that their opinions about worship style be accepted as doctrinal purity that they run of anyone who is different (read that as under the age of 45 or not raised LCMS)
Contrast that with the churches like Willow Creek that are growing and trying to respond to a survey that shows them that their methods need to be adjusted. They are working to bring Christ to thousands using methods that wouldn't meet your needs, but could bring Christ to many of people.
And all you guys can do is complain about music styles.
Posted by: akira Kurosawa | October 16, 2008 at 06:20 PM
Steve,
No transaction? Why is it called the new "covenant" then? (Sorry, that's off track, but a fun discussion nonetheless...) You said before that "A disciple is defined by what they are taught and believe first, not what they do." Is that really the definition? That is what I was asking. It's not the actual definition of the word disciple, a learner/follower basically, and in my view, not Jesus' definition either. And yet you are using this definition to level criticism. By your statement, disciples are defined by beliefs, hence my extrapolation above. But perhaps this, too, is off point.
Bror,
You write, first " I find very few people over the age of 70 that really appreciate the contemporary styles and loud music." I find dozens of them in just my church alone! Keep in mind that somebody who is 70 today was 20 in the 50s. The funny thing is, the people I know who appreciate contemporary music the least seem to be my age, mid 40s or so. Interesting to me. I have no idea why this is.
Also... "I like a "style" of worship that reminds me I am in the presence of God who created the world and me, and when I sinned that God died for me." So do I, and for me it involves guitars and drums! But your use of the word "like" makes my point. You don't appreciate the style of music for worship. That is just great. But slamming it just because you don't like it is hardly constructive, as you implied by your post above that you might have some first-hand knowledge of the particular renderings of the hymns at the conference.
it is also my view that many who find fault with contemporary worship music (like you yourself seem to do), seem to try and make it a theological issue, when it is in fact a stylistic/preference issue, as you make clear when you say "I like a "style" of worship that fosters unity in the church so that Grandparents, parents and children from different cultures, tastes, and walks of life can come together worship and commune together." and "I like a "style" of worship that reminds me I am in the presence of God who created the world and me, and when I sinned that God died for me. I don't like to be reminded of the world outside when I am worshiping."
What would be so wrong with someone admitting that this is a preference they have, and not necessarily a theological argument? I'm mystified by this issue in today's church.
Posted by: Peter Hamm | October 16, 2008 at 06:30 PM
Steve,
According to I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 episkopos and presbuteros cannot be female, single, or childless.
:>
Posted by: Miriam J. Nard | October 16, 2008 at 06:34 PM
Akira,
1 Cor. 12:3 (ESV)
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 10:10 (ESV)
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Listen if you want to object to us on this realize your beef isn't with us it is with Scripture. We Lutherans were the first to claim Sola Scriptura, and we know our scriptures. Faith is passive, that is on our end. It is also active it works on us and through us, but it isn't us it is faith. It bears fruit, we don't. So yes the good that we do is to the glory of God, it is his work not ours. We take credit for the bad, yet God forgives us.
Our doctrine is not to blame for declining numbers in our church, neither is the worship that we use. Actually I would maintain that it is the opposite. The discord brought on by those who want to teach and practice contrary to Lutheran doctrine is driving the church away.
I have a fairly small congregation in a mid size town in the desert of Utah. I have one service a week, it is the service I grew up with, the liturgy done with an organ. Yesterday I was selected to do a survey for the LCMS because my church was in the top 5 percent for growth amongst adults. It was shocking to me to read that. the growth is a gift from God, and his work through me. But I haven't had to compromise on Lutheran doctrine and practice to get the numbers up. I just go and visit and teach, and it works. I have people transfer sometimes, I have had WELS and ELS transfer, I have had people from the African Methodist Episcopal church join. I have had baptists join and Catholics join. I have had Mormons join. but it takes work, you have to visit you have to teach. I have also had LCMS members come and go down the street to the pentecostal church, because the church they came from was pentecostal, and not Lutheran, but it said Lutheran on the door outside. It isn't our doctrine or our practice that is a problem as far as our growth in numbers. If it was my church would be dead, the doors would be closed. Which almost happened before I came. The pastor here before me practiced open communion, used the Chicago Folk Mass, and other such nonsense to get people in, it almost died.
As for not having eough pastors for the Churches, well that is really a propoganda lie, as evidenced by the fact that 30 graduates from the seminaries went without a call this year.
No one under 45? You haven't seen my congregation. But I do wonder do these churches with the rock bands have members over 60? Yes I complain about music styles, because modern music segragates. Some like Rock, some like top 40, some like alternative, some like Country, some like Jazz, some like Rap, some like blues, but usually people don't like or prefer all of them. These style segregate according to age, race, culture, etc. They actually creat subcultures. Well the churches tried and true historic music developed over the centuries also creates a subculture, called Christian, and it is a subculture you can belong to for life, cradle to grave. You don't wake up one day pull the nose ring out and die your hair purple, and regret the tattoo, as you throw out the CD collection because you can't stand to listen to that music anymore it doesn't go along with the Rocking chair.
Posted by: Bror Erickson | October 16, 2008 at 06:54 PM
Peter,
Learn to read sarcasm into quotation marks.
It is a theological issue, plain and simple. When generations who belong to the same Lord can't worship with each other it is a theological issue. When the style of worship is fostering disunity in the body of Christ it is a theological issue. When the style of worship is teaching something other than the gospel, it is a theological issue.
Posted by: Bror Erickson | October 16, 2008 at 06:58 PM
My beef isn't with the scriptures it's with the Lutheran interpretation.
"I have a fairly small congregation in a mid size town in the desert of Utah. I have one service a week, it is the service I grew up with, the liturgy done with an organ. Yesterday I was selected to do a survey for the LCMS because my church was in the top 5 percent for growth amongst adults."
Thanks for making my point for me, and check your facts on Lutheran church growth before you disagree...
"It was shocking to me to read that. the growth is a gift from God, and his work through me."
Passive attitude... again making my point for me...
"I have people transfer sometimes, I have had WELS and ELS transfer, I have had people from the African Methodist Episcopal church join. I have had baptists join and Catholics join. I have had Mormons join."
But no new converts? Proves my point again...
"As for not having eough pastors for the Churches, well that is really a propoganda lie, as evidenced by the fact that 30 graduates from the seminaries went without a call this year."
Again, check your facts, anywhere away from the midwest... you might be surprised
Your arguments are typical hide in the sand techniques that have been told and retold for years Bror. Sorry, but give your church 10 years and it won't matter how many seminary grads there are, LCMS churches will have to shut their doors do to lack of attendance.
But really the issue is here:
"And then you have people so concerned that their opinions about worship style be accepted as doctrinal purity that they run of anyone who is different (read that as under the age of 45 or not raised LCMS)"
Your opinion is not doctrine, Bror, it's your opinion.
Posted by: akira Kurosawa | October 16, 2008 at 07:29 PM
Akira,
So you consider Mormons to be Christian? No I have had plenty of new converts too.
Sorry Akira, but your problem actually is with the scriptures if you want to take credit for your faith, or the good works that you do, go read Ephesians.
And actually I have spent most of my time outside the mid west, and I do know the facts. I know that membership in the LCMS is declining I won't debate that. And it is sad. But the doctrine is not the reason for it. The most doctrinally sound guys I know have their churches growing.
I do like it when people predict the demise of the church though. It is kind of funny. It has been happening for quite some time, but the people are always proven wrong. We in the LCMS will be around a good while, if synod doesn't shut down for doctrinal disagreement. But then the churches will still be around still Lutheran, and still going strong even without powerpoint.
Posted by: Bror Erickson | October 16, 2008 at 07:45 PM
You listed the Mormon converts, so I assumed they were Christians since they joined you.
And as for taking credit for my faith reread my first reply to you, it's the one about me not taking credit for faith lest you think I am boasting.
But Bror we are really just talking past each other now since you really aren't paying attention to what I am writing, you are just trotting out dogma and just repeating what you learned in seminary.
...and how many Lutheran churches have closed this year Bror? Check that statistic, it will make you even sadder.
The Truth hurts
Posted by: akira Kurosawa | October 16, 2008 at 07:59 PM
What's this blog about again?????
I thought I had stumled on the Bror and Akira show!
Posted by: Blogsy | October 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM
*sigh*
Silly comments which people really ought to know better by now than to suggest because of how silly they sound:
1) "Your church isn't growing like such-and-such, therefore it must be doing something wrong and the one with lots of people must be doing God's will. Closing churches must mean God's not happy with you and you're a bunch of meanies, and the shift obviously has nothing to do with people's ears being tickled by bad doctrine and practice at other churches."
2) "Faith may be a gift and that may be a biblical idea, but it's so not pragmatic... it makes people take grace for granted and do no good works!"
3) "Gee, I wonder why people who are middle-aged like me are the ones who dig the hip and groovy 'contemporary' worship."
4) "Worship music has nothing to do with theology whatsoever! It's just sheer and amazing coincidence and taste that makes Catholics worship like Catholics, Baptists worship like Baptists, Lutherans worship like Lutherans, and Willow Creek lovers worship like Willow Creek lovers."
5) "People who want traditional worship are just wanting their own culture and childhood memories to prevail." [Actually a lot of people who agree with Chris here are twenty-somethings who grew up with contemporary worship most of their lives, like me.]
6) "I'm not taking *credit* for attaining faith; I'm just responsible for attaining faith! You need to give people a sense of duty when it comes to attaining their own salvation, or they'll get lazy." [This is why Roman Catholicism and evangelicalism are not really all that different from each other.]
7) "Divisiveness doesn't please God. Christians should never disagree with one another; it's not good for PR. We'll all be in heaven anyway, so not much matters down here on earth. Besides, shouldn't you be out witnessing instead of blogging if you're so concerned about people's souls?" [Pot calling kettle; come in...]
Posted by: Kelly | October 16, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Heya Kelly, wondered when you would get here. (and that is not sarcasm, and neither is my last comment...bah I really mean it, good to see you)
1. Preaching to an empty house is kinda pointless and has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with the people at the church. It's not God who makes empty churches.
2. Faith is a gift but I still have to accept it.
3. Gee wonder why mostly old people and people who grew up LCMS attend traditional services.
4. It's the words, that matter, not the guitars. And yes some of those denominations are stylistic differences and some are doctrinal differences, so who is right, Kelly? So which denomination is right? Are only Lutherans going to heaven?
5. Umm not sure what that's all about we were talking about opinions on style of music.
6. The responsibility lies in not being luke warm. Or maybe God made me luke warm for a reason...right.
7. Umm again not sure where that came from. Discussion is good, I learn alot when I disagree with someone, makes me evaluate my position on the topic and sometimes change my position based on what's discussed.
Posted by: akira Kurosawa | October 16, 2008 at 09:38 PM
A comment concerning #5 above:
Last night I talked to a couple who are going to be attending our PCA church one Sunday per month and evenings when they are able to - their church has gone to a monthly "praise and worship" format which they find offensive and it doesn't conduct evening services. The couple is in their 40's.
My daughter very strongly desires to attend our church and does whenever she has the chance. The church she attends (and which we attended for 28 years) is of the "happy-clappy" variety with man-centered moralistic teaching. She stays out of submission to her husband who is under the control of the "pastor". She is 23 years old.
Our PCA church is very traditional, with hymns, hymnbooks, and a real choir and, most importantly, a pastor who faithfully proclaims the Word of God. We're not a large congregation but God is bringing to us people who are hungry for His Word and sick of the seeker sensitive nonsense in so many of the churches today.
Bror - God bless you and keep on feeding the people God has given you and help mature them in faith!
Posted by: SueS | October 16, 2008 at 09:57 PM
A comment concerning #5 above:
Last night I talked to a couple who are going to be attending our PCA church one Sunday per month and evenings when they are able to - their church has gone to a monthly "praise and worship" format which they find offensive and it doesn't conduct evening services. The couple is in their 40's.
My daughter very strongly desires to attend our church and does whenever she has the chance. The church she attends (and which we attended for 28 years) is of the "happy-clappy" variety with man-centered moralistic teaching. She stays out of submission to her husband who is under the control of the "pastor". She is 23 years old.
Our PCA church is very traditional, with hymns, hymnbooks, and a real choir and, most importantly, a pastor who faithfully proclaims the Word of God. We're not a large congregation but God is bringing to us people who are hungry for His Word and sick of the seeker sensitive nonsense in so many of the churches today.
Bror - God bless you and keep on feeding the people God has given you and help mature them in faith!
Posted by: SueS | October 16, 2008 at 09:57 PM
A comment concerning #5 above:
Last night I talked to a couple who are going to be attending our PCA church one Sunday per month and evenings when they are able to - their church has gone to a monthly "praise and worship" format which they find offensive and it doesn't conduct evening services. The couple is in their 40's.
My daughter very strongly desires to attend our church and does whenever she has the chance. The church she attends (and which we attended for 28 years) is of the "happy-clappy" variety with man-centered moralistic teaching. She stays out of submission to her husband who is under the control of the "pastor". She is 23 years old.
Our PCA church is very traditional, with hymns, hymnbooks, and a real choir and, most importantly, a pastor who faithfully proclaims the Word of God. We're not a large congregation but God is bringing to us people who are hungry for His Word and sick of the seeker sensitive nonsense in so many of the churches today.
Bror - God bless you and keep on feeding the people God has given you and help mature them in faith!
Posted by: SueS | October 16, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Sorry about the triplicate comments - my computer was being very uncooperative!!!
Posted by: SueS | October 16, 2008 at 09:58 PM
Sorry about the triplicate comments - my computer was being very uncooperative!!!
Posted by: SueS | October 16, 2008 at 09:59 PM
1) No one likes empty churches, persecution, or things not going well, but empty pews are not always a sign that something is wrong with what is being taught or done in that place... unless you hold to a theology of glory where numbers are the measure of success. But we in North America think small=bad and excited mobs=truth. That's why the church today tries so hard to manufacture experiences and emotionalism.
2) Birth and becoming part of a family is a gift, but I still have to accept it, sign on the dotted line, and tell my parents I've graciously chosen to accept them as my own. Oh wait...
3) That didn't make any sense, try again. I know, being old is bad, being young, hip, and Pentacostalish is fashionable... if only the LCMS realized that's what they needed! Young people are too often fed the lie from their boomer parents that youth hate tradition, and they come to believe it. But scores of Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox youth don't fall for the lame stuff the boomers want to feed them, and scores more are getting sick of their emotionally manipulative evangelical upbringing.
4) See previous point #7 again, which you missed. The point isn't who's going to be in heaven or not. The point is that Catholics worship like Catholics because theology shapes practice. Same with Baptists, Methodists, Willow Creekers, and every other church body. The reason Baptists don't worship like Anglicans is because they don't believe like Anglicans. It's naive to think that worship is all about style and not belief about what is actually happening.
5) People often suggest that it's just the life-long Lutherans that are fed up with the influx of stuff that's different and they are just resistant to change. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's those of us who converted into Lutheranism that are the most adamant that our church doesn't get sucked into the vortex of desperately trying to pander to people's feelings and selfish desires in the name of Christianity. A lot of us have been there and advocated that stuff for so long it embarrasses us to remember it.
6) No one denied that Christians have responsibilities. But we aren't "responsible" for attaining our salvation, though we like to do so because it gives us boasting rights over and against those other lukewarm types who aren't as on-fire and "responsible" as we are. I've actually heard this sort of boasting first-hand. People don't set out to do it, but when it's built right into their theology it does come out. They turn their noses up at all those sinful unbelievers who are too stupid, immoral, and irresponsible to put their faith in Jesus like *they* did.
7) I'm glad you're interested in discussion. Not everyone here is. I've heard these comments countless times on this very blog.
Posted by: Kelly | October 16, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I would also like to jump in on this #5 business, too:
I'm 28 and have far more friends and family in this liturgical camp--including myself. And it's not due to my background, either; infact, I've lived on that side of the evangelical devide and found it a theological wasteland, devoid of any talk of Christ, his work, or the Gospel. So here I am.
As to the dwindling numbers in Confessional Lutheranism, our accusers should get their facts straight...as if numbers, detractors, and false brothers were any indication of healthful teaching at all (John 6). To whom should we go?
As to the charge that the LCMS has a shortage of seminarians: as a seminarian myself, I can tell you there are more men available for calls than churches able to call them. We delayed dozens from our two seminaries last year alone.
Furthermore, it was the artificial and cancerous adoption of these vapid, meaningless, and shallow American "Evangelical" principles that lead to the downfall of Lutheranism--and the rest of the church, for that matter. Sectarianism has destroyed many churches, mine are among that number. Many just simply are too small to call a pastor.
But I can tell you: we will set the bar again. We've fought this battle for hundreds of years and always come out stronger than before. Actually, I have seen amazing strides toward a unified confession just in the last few years; this is an actual "revival". Reguardless, numbers and figures cannot sway me: "I'd rather be ruined with Christ than rule with Caesar." VDMA!
Posted by: O.H. Lee | October 16, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Kelly ,you have really got on a roll.Here in Australia,our Christianity is placed against a highly secular,nay ,godless society. Evangelical churches -Anglican or non-conformist,tend to go with any thign from America ,rather than look at what contemporary Australian christianity can offer. The exception would be the Lutheran church of Australia,who's ancestors fled the same persecution as the founders of the LCMS in Prussia.(In fact 18th november is 170th year of Lutheran settlement in Australia).
The megachurches in Australia range from 3000 to 20,000,usually Assembly of God or Baptist,but if you close eyes and ignore the accent,you would think you are in Willow creek or Saddleback church.
Caught between this and the liberalism of mainline denominations -LCA excluded-there appears to be churches being formed that are small to moderate in number ,and seek to be based upon preaching,teaching and community,and which disavow the prosperity gospel and or the triumphalism of the megachurches
Posted by: wayne also from Down Under | October 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM
"5) "People who want traditional worship are just wanting their own culture and childhood memories to prevail." [Actually a lot of people who agree with Chris here are twenty-somethings who grew up with contemporary worship most of their lives, like me.]"
Here is another twenty-something who grew up with contemporary worship and who absolutely adores the liturgy.
Posted by: Jonathan Schultz | October 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Wayne from down under - we have just left a megachurch after 22 years here in Sydney. CCC Oxford Falls has totally gone seeker-sensitive, in fact the whole movement has. We left because the scales fell off our eyes re the "charismatic chaos" going on. You mentioned the Anglican Church, this is the denomination we are now attending and finding the gospel being preached faithfully in a little congregation in the northern beaches area - no liberalism, just fulfilling the great commission, letting God build His church.
Posted by: Teddy | October 17, 2008 at 02:21 AM
How about we take away the music, can we still worship God then. Emotions do play a role, but shouldn't we worship God out of a heart filled with gratefulness for what He has done. We don't really need music for that. Without music who will still be around. We are wound up emotionally and controlled. I used to feel I could walk on the roof. If I didn't feel anything I thought God hadn't turned up. We don't grow through singing. We grow through reading God's word, when the Holy Spirit quickens it to us. Also through prayer. Thanks Chris I appreciate your feedback. Sounds like conferences I used to go to. I used to go to christian outreach. AOG conference had one song that went for over an hour. A guy ended up giving away his Harley. Next day he was trying to get it back. I hope he learned not to do things like that when he was all hyped up.
Posted by: jude newman | October 17, 2008 at 06:24 AM
How about we take away the music, can we still worship God then. Emotions do play a role, but shouldn't we worship God out of a heart filled with gratefulness for what He has done. We don't really need music for that. Without music who will still be around. We are wound up emotionally and controlled. I used to feel I could walk on the roof. If I didn't feel anything I thought God hadn't turned up. We don't grow through singing. We grow through reading God's word, when the Holy Spirit quickens it to us. Also through prayer. Thanks Chris I appreciate your feedback. Sounds like conferences I used to go to. I used to go to christian outreach. AOG conference had one song that went for over an hour. A guy ended up giving away his Harley. Next day he was trying to get it back. I hope he learned not to do things like that when he was all hyped up.
Posted by: jude newman | October 17, 2008 at 06:26 AM
Interesting comment about worship, Jude. It has been my observation that in Charismatic and similar churches, "worship" is all about music when in fact, worship is the preaching of the Word, prayer, observing the sacraments, giving, and music. Each element is important - they are not supposed to be compartmentalized.
Posted by: SueS | October 18, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Wow. Much has been written since I left my little missive on your site. I was curious to see if you had responded and was surprised by the vitrol and polarized opinions that followed (or maybe I wasn't....) I won't attempt to argue with you about the virtues of "modern" vs. "100 year old" worship styles. In fact, I won't attempt to argue at all. None of these arguments will really ever really change anyone's mind. They simply make the author feel like they've gotten their small opinion out there. That's the point of blogs, I suppose. It makes Ingrid feel good to dismiss anything she doesn't agree with. It makes other bloggers feel good to dismiss her. The cycle continues and we've got all out Christian warfare. Seems silly when you think about it.
I hope you enjoyed the Reveal Conference. You're welcome to come back to Willow any time for a weekend service. We talk about the Bible and Jesus and sing hymns. Just like a real church :-)
Posted by: Matt Wilkerson | October 18, 2008 at 05:53 PM
Akira: "And some people come to understand something by hearing.
Others need something a little different."
Bill: The gospel can ONLY be understood by hearing. Nobody needs anything different, like an emotional experience or whatever you meant. Romans 10:17 is crystal clear that faith comes from hearing the word of God and from nothing else.
"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Posted by: Bill | October 19, 2008 at 01:25 AM
Akira: "And some people come to understand something by hearing.
Others need something a little different."
Bill: The gospel can ONLY be understood by hearing. Nobody needs anything different, like an emotional experience or whatever you meant. Romans 10:17 is crystal clear that faith comes from hearing the word of God and from nothing else.
"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Posted by: Bill | October 19, 2008 at 02:09 AM
Chris is correct in his analysis of the "Willow Creek experience". And by the way I love how Chris describes his own subjective experience of attending this Willow Creek event. I have had the same experience Chris has had and went through the same feelings. This is because the Willow Creek model is so prevalent in american churches today.
Sappy sentimentalism, "Jesus is knocking and wants you to open the door" type of preaching appeals to the flesh. All this "experiencing Jesus" type of nonsense is so far from biblical, and yet it's the predominant type of atmosphere in the church today. Even if there was no music in church, this kind of feelings would still thrive. Because the modern church is not about God and his work on the cross any longer, but about me, what I feel, what I experience etc.
The New Testament has hardly anything to say about personal experiences. The only personal experiences the apostles wrote about relate to being persecuted for preaching the gospel.
Just recently at a Management Seminar at work, when asked what is unique to eavh of us, a woman said she was a devout christian. So I ask her at one of the breaks if she read the bible, she said no, but that right now her focus is on how God was working inside her, how God is giving her power to achieve more in her life. In all likelihood this lady that identified herself as a devout christian doesn't know Christ and neither do the vast majority of Willow Creek church attendees, who make a personal God for themselves that will meet their needs. This is idoloatry.
Those that criticize Chris for being too harsh in his criticisms don't realize that Jesus himself and Paul were much harsher and much more divisive Chris is. God hates the lukewarm church Laodicea and we shouldn't criticize Chris for not being lukewarm.
Posted by: Bill | October 19, 2008 at 02:14 AM
Bill writes [The New Testament has hardly anything to say about personal experiences.] Huh? The Bible is FILLED with stories about personal experiences. The man born blind, the woman at the well, the man Peter healed in the temple, Paul's experience. It's totally filled with them. Not sure what you mean by that, perhaps you'd like to clarify.
Also you wrote, [In all likelihood this lady that identified herself as a devout christian doesn't know Christ and neither do the vast majority of Willow Creek church attendees, who make a personal God for themselves that will meet their needs.] This would imply that you are well acquainted with at least a sizable sample of these people. Is that the case? Just because one person you met has their understanding of how important the Bible is totally messed up does not mean that "the vast majority" of attendees of this particular church do.
One of the findings (totally unsurprising to me) in the REVEAL study was that getting people more and more into the Word as a daily habit is a main catalyst (if not THE main catalyst) to spiritual growth. (In fact, it remains an ongoing initiative of my church, too.) This will indeed keep them from making a "personal God for themselves that will meet their needs", which I (and probably everybody here) agree is "idoloatry". However, I know from personal contact with leaders at Willow that they desire their people to be well-grounded in the Word, and would certainly not endorse this particular woman's avoidance of Scripture.
Posted by: Peter Hamm | October 19, 2008 at 07:31 PM
This subject is late in the game and already discussed but I was out of town this week and didn't read this thread until today.
Music styles were being discussed at the top. I realize that's not the deepest spiritual subject being discussed on this thread right now.
One comment (sarcastic, I might add) was made about Handel's "Hallelujah" chorus and how the words repeated. This has been brought up several times in my experience and I have never had a chance to respond. The first time I heard this addressed was at Saddleback, (from the mouth of Rick Warren himself, if I'm not mistaken) when we were forced to attend "music week" there by our former church.
"Messiah" is an oratorio taken from Biblical scripture. It tells about part of the life of Christ from Isaiah (prophesy) through Acts.
The master composers knew that a wordy text and difficult fugal and malismatic (can't find the correct spelling of that word right now) music didn't mix. In other words, a lot of notes and a lot of words sung by a lot of people at the same time can't be understood. The recitatives have a lot of words, the music is sometimes difficult but they are easier for the listener to understand because they are being sung by one person. The choral pieces are difficult musically because the melodies and counter melodies weave in and out of each other. It's difficult to hear a wordy text that way, therefore few words are involved. Handel also wanted to have variety in this piece of music. (Wordy, not wordy; simpler music, difficult music; solos, choral works). Remember, the Hallelujah chorus is only one part of a whole oratorio. Handel first performed this in Dublin, Ireland where many people of that time couldn't even read at all, much less read the Bible.
"Messiah" is not even in the same league with the 7-11, eardrum splitting tripe we hear today. "Messiah" is still performed. Compare that with the contemporary "Christian" music of today, which doesn't last longer than a few months at the most.
Sorry to rehash this but like I said, I've been waiting a LONG time to respond to that statement and the opportunity arose.
Good job, Chris, very interesting.
Posted by: cy | October 19, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Chris,
I appreciate these two reviews. Keep up the good work!
Blessings,
Mark
Posted by: johnMark | October 19, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Lets consider what the New Testament says of music in a gathering of believers:
Colossians 1:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Ephesians 5:19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Two main elements here are: thankfulness/gratitude and this thing called "the word of Christ". What is the word of Christ? The Gospel.
Songs should be about Jesus Christ, people should sing with thankfulness. Singing is seen here in the context of teaching. Therefore do not play or sing in a way that is pointing people to the musician or singer or the experience. That doesn't mean playing badly or not enjoying it- it means playing well to help people sing about Jesus. We need to point them to the Cross, to God's goodness and mercy in that.
Too often, modern songs are about what I am doing for God, or how God makes me feel, or wishy washy lovey-dovey love songs (great for guys to sing).
I'm not going to get into a debate about musical styles. But I will say that much of contemporary Christian music is fundamentally lacking, before any discussion of style, is the Gospel. Whether this is attributable to being "relevant" and "inoffensive" or some other reason I don't know. But that's another debate. But yeah, whatever you do,don't say anyone is a sinner. That is no good for their self esteem (sarc.) or your radio airplay.
Posted by: wilson | October 22, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Chris,
I think your desire to see change in the body of Christ is good, but your method and approach are aweful. Sure you appeal and get applause from the guys in your camp or same line of thinking. But for a guy like me and so many others that I talk with, you will be put in the same camp as the guys in the seeker sensitive model; totally out of touch with reality and anti everything that is not what you “think” is truth. Seeker sensitive churches were birthed because of your brand of Christianity. People who are not in relationship with Christ would not read what you have to say and think you are the kind of guy that exemplifies The Christ of the bible. The irony is you think the same of these guys in the seeker sensitive movement. Maybe we can confess that we are all riding high on our little horse of what we think is right, and when God knocks us off, it is up to us to look into our hearts with the truth of the whole counsel of God's word and then ask Him to make some changes.
Your mockery of the worship experience, the way people dress, and their "Rob Bell" glasses only show your immaturity. You have judged all of these people by their cover and their attendance at this conference and not by your interaction with them. I think I ran across this a lot when I was in High School! This is sad...I have plenty of friends who are reformed in their theology just like you, who wear trendy clothes and trendy eye glasses that are in love with Christ and do their best to honor His word. I would be afraid for you to meet them though, you might cast your self-righteous judgment upon them just because of the way they dress and the type of worship they engage in. Sad...do you realize there are guys who doctrinally line up with you 100% who are in the Christian music scene, writing great worship songs, that are not meant to be tribe or insignificant, but are meant to bring themselves and other Christians into a proper focus of Jesus Christ and worship Him in spirit and in truth? But as far as your concerned if it has anything to do with a modern sound or "rock band worship" it's an "emotionally manipulative 'worship' experience". Sure thing…and this quote was my favorite from your post, “I experienced ear splitting sissy girly oprahfied 7/11 songs and the complete anger”! Nice man, nice!
Maybe your skin was crawling because God wanted you to realize your condemnation of everyone else but yourself puts you in the place of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. But of coarse you THINK it is because your anger is so righteous...then continue in your anger my friend, I hope and pray you see that all of your doctrine is nothing without Christ and the Holy Spirit!
Peace
Tony
Posted by: Tony Simoncini | November 26, 2008 at 04:07 PM
Wow, there's some real venomous stuff in this blog. I am definitely no fan of seeker-oriented churches, but some of the posts on this blog absolutely REEK of spiritual arrogance.
Much has been made here about what "worship" is from a Scriptural perspective, yet no one has defined what "biblical worship" is using specific scriptural references. Some of the posters seem very confident that their particular church is doing it correctly, while others are not. I think it no accident that while the Scriptures have preserved the lyrics of songs sung by the Israelites (i.e., the Psalms), the musical notation has been not been preserved as part of the Bible. Music is an expression of the culture in which it is created. I know some who think Gregorian Chant is "holier" than most other types of music, but I don't know where they get that idea from the Bible. Where do you get the idea that the use of praise and worship music does not constitute "real" worship? What's the scriptural basis for that? Worship is not an experience or emotion; but there's certainly nothing wrong with having an experience with God, or being emotional, in my worship of Him. You assume that God would not want us to personally encounter Him during worship? Why?
Posted by: Metamorphoo | December 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM