Guy recently posted links to a couple of articles by world-famous blogger iMonk.
What do you think about these two posts from iMonk?
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/arant-from-a-loser-in-the-worship-wars
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/let-me-restate-that
Written by either a current or former Lutheran (not sure), but entirely relevant to the Church of Christ issues about worship, splits, and loving each other. Do you think the author is way off?
iMonk writes,
- When I say I am a “loser” in the worship wars, I mean that I feel the evangelical church took “worship” away from me. It changed the definition and ethos of worship. The church growth strategy that has overwhelmed today’s evangelical church uses music as a tool to attract people to church and stimulate them into particular emotional states, then calls that “worship.”
Hmm … I’m not sure I buy the argument. Yes, many churches use music as part of an attractional strategy, but what is the alternative? To use music that drives people away? To care more about the tastes of the long-time members than visitors and young members?
Should we be unconcerned with the emotional state created by the music? Paul commands us to “sing,” not to recite lyrics. Music adds something that words cannot do alone — and that something is emotional. And our God is an emotional God who cares deeply about how we feel as well as how we think. The two are not in opposition. It’s not either-or. I reject the nearly Gnostic idea that worship must be entirely intellectual in content. In singing, emotion works hand-in-hand with intellect.
- When I describe my new friend as a “casualty” in the worship wars, it is because of the way her church and church leaders dismissed her. I feel for her because I think it shows that this church growth mentality has also changed the way we understand “church” and “pastoral ministry.” She became a casualty of that change.
iMonk described an older member who once sang in the choir but was left out when the church ended the choir ministry —
Turns out she is at our church because she wants to sing in a choir. … And then she would return to her church later in the morning to attend their service too. They no longer have a choir, and won’t consider a choir ministry. She’s out of job. Without consulting her and others like her, the leaders simply determined choral ministry didn’t fit any longer.
iMonk’s ultimate conclusion is —
Now the bottom line is, when you start defining church and ministry in these terms, you have departed from NT ecclesiology. The church, the Body of Christ, the fellowship of believers is no longer practically understood as the whole family of God; it’s just those who are strong, active, and attractive. The old, the weak, the shut-ins, those with limited gifts or resources, and friends like mine who have gifts that no longer fit with the program are made to feel left out. It’s no longer the pastor’s primary duty to know and feed his flock—all the members of his flock—but to motivate, equip, and use the strong to fulfill the mission.
[All emphases in iMonk quotations are in the original.]
Now let’s consider carefully the argument being made: the church should have a choir because a member who enjoys singing in the choir feels left out because she can no longer use her talents in this manner. Indeed, it’s argued, the decision of the leadership to end the choir indicates a callous attitude toward the elderly.
Let’s take an example from the history of the Churches of Christ. There are times the leaders must make a decision that hurts the feelings of some of their beloved members. When Churches of Christ went to multiple cups a century ago, some people were hurt, but you can’t have both one cup and multiple cups. It’s one or the other. Did the decision to use multiple cups indicate a lack of love for the one-cuppers? Did it indicate a desire to be seeker sensitive at the expense of long-time members?
I’m certain many older members felt exactly that way. One hundred years ago, they’d have used a different vocabulary to express their unhappiness, but they would have felt that the leaders bowed to fashion and the desires of younger members and visitors. After all, the leaders surely argued that during a time of tuberculosis and flu epidemics, a one-cup church had no chance of growing (and they’d have been right).
When a Church of Christ builds its first fellowship hall, the same feelings and same arguments are made. “You’re catering to the young people and visitors at the expense of the older members who’ve invested their lives in this congregation!” “You’re not considering the feelings of those of us who grew up being taught that fellowship halls are sin. We may not agree with that teaching, but surely you understand how our families and friends will react to see us in a congregation with a fellowship hall!” “The elders didn’t ask for enough input! If they’d asked one more time, we’d have persuaded them not to do this terrible thing. They aren’t considering our feelings!”
Change is hard. And every change runs the very real risk of hurting someone’s feelings — and usually does. And yet … not changing also hurts feelings. The young members, the visitors, and many of the older members would be just as upset had the decision gone the other way: “You’re catering to the legalists!” “You’re stifling any chance we have of inviting our friends!” “You care more about the givers than the mission of God!” “Why doesn’t my need for a place to hold baby showers and wedding receptions matter as much as their need to be free from criticism by their friends?”
Change is hard. And elders should certainly hear from both sides before making a hard decision, but the result of no change is death. I know a congregation that was once a vibrant, growing congregation doing great things for Jesus that’s now on its deathbed. It’s comatose and soon to be dead because it stopped changing. It caters so well to its members’ desires that people only leave via the funeral home, but it caters so well to its members’ desires that no one is joining the church. It’s inwardly focused and all about keeping the givers happy. And every year, another few givers die, the church shrinks, and no one places membership, no one is born into the church, and no one is converted. But the members love their worship service.
Change is hard, but if you don’t do hard things, you die.
The critical question, therefore, isn’t how to keep everyone happy or how to play the political games that church leaders play. The critical question is how to be faithful to God, and to answer that, we’ll not be consulting church growth experts or worship ministers or visitor surveys. For now, we need to consider what the Story of God’s mission tells us about worship.
Now, this series will take up several posts. Before we can answer Guy’s and iMonk’s questions, we have to sort through what the Bible actually says about New Testament worship, and we’re going to take the long, leisurely route.
And this will not be about instrumental music per se. After all, iMonk writes from within an entirely different tradition and tribe. I’ll be speaking to Church of Christ sensibilities, but the theology won’t sound much like the traditional a cappella vs. instrumental debate. Rather, this is about the much larger (and more important) question of what the New Testament teaches about worship and the assembly. Some of this will be familiar to long-time readers, but there will also be considerable new material.
By the end of the series, I expect to propose an entirely different way of looking at these questions. This series will share the same roots as the Real Restoration series, and I’ll not repeat any of that material here. I’ll just assume you’re following both series. You could think of this series as an example of how the theology of the Real Restoration series plays out when applied to worship.
But this won’t be the series in which to debate instrumental versus a cappella music. The issue is much, much broader than that, and I would not want the series to bog down in the vagaries of Clement of Alexandria’s allegorical methodology. This will be about what it means to follow Jesus.
Jay,
What I am about to say I've said before in a post , but I think needs repeating. There are methods that are not wrong in themselves, but do not add any depth to the church and its worship. The praise band, as far as I am concerned, is one of them.
The praise band, in my opinion, creates a stage show atmosphere which gives celebrity status to its leaders. It also allows room for the musicians to add songs that they wrote themselves, most of which are not very good. I attended a church for a while, not a Church of Christ, that allowed some of its members to start a praise band. Their egos caused them to wait until most of the assembly was seated, then walk through like any other rock group approaching the stage. Then once the pastor found a band that was better and replaced them it caused grave problems.
I just recently looked through an old Church of Christ hymnal I have in my book case. One solution, for the Church of Christ, is not bringing in the guitars, but better editing of the hymnals. And for most evangelical churches the key is not to try to use music to fill in the void created by the blandness of their teaching.
It is too easy to describe churches of today that still use the traditional hymns, whether sung a cappella or with organ and piano, as dead. Their traditional worhip is not the cause of death. It is what they teach and how they teach it. It would just as easy to find a churches with more people on stage with guitars and drums than in the pew.
All that said, congregations will use methods that most of the members prefer. But, I believe, and hope, that the band will be seen and understood to be just another tool; not THE answer. I remember when the bus ministry was seen as THE answer. In most areas it died out. I remember while in college during a lectureship one preacher taught and demonstrated that THE answer to better large Bible classes was to operate it like the Phil Donahue show (this was in the 1970s), where he would run, literally run, he said it was important to run, from one person to the next with the microphone, creating interest by allowing them to speak.
To conclude (I know you may be saying, FINALLY), method is not a savior. No method works without the written and spoken word being fed wisely to a healthy, hungry people.
Have just experienced a similar issue here. And at heart the problem is not with the leadership or about worship.
We are transitioning from a healthy family focused congregation to be a healthy Christ focused congregation. For many years Mr. Y and Ms's X and Z have run various and sundry ministries – and they have done very good jobs. They have done such very good jobs that no one else was ever approached to help in those works. Many tried to help but were rebuffed. This created a sharp line of partition between these ancient members and anyone who had come more recently – say in the past ten years.
We have several small groups. We need these groups to be doing more than praying, reading, discussing and scarfing down coffee cake. So last January (2010) we reorganized the ministry structure of the congregation to involve more individuals in the planning stages (thereby reducing the burden on the top tier) and directing the practical efforts through the groups to involve the most people possible in the life of the Body and in service. We retained the original individuals in their original roles except they were now overseers, not doers.
They went nuts. We had taken their ministry away from them. We had many discussions with them over the next year and for the most part things are not only cool, but they have become great. But in every instance the individual had to realize that the problem wasn't with the leadership but with the reason they had been serving in the first place. In the beginning they had been serving the Church. Then it became what they did and who they were. In the end they weren't serving the Church, we were serving them – their egos, their self image. That is the problem behind a lot of resistance to change.
I think maybe you are being a little too hard on the imonk writer. I don't feel like he is arguing against change, but for patience. He isn't arguing against reaching out to the new and younger generation, but towards a more full and catholic expression of worship.
What resonated with me in his writing was, more than anything, a call for imagination. In other words, not an "either/or" proposition, not a "traditional" service and a different and separate "modern" service, but a creative and godly reimagination of how things can be done inclusively.
Obviously with some questions it must be either/or (for instance, do we build or not build). For most other things, though, maybe we should slow down and creatively asess how to include more facets of the Body of Christ than maybe we would do if pressed to act more quickly.
Is there any reason to not have both one-cup and multiple cups in the same service? How can we include the choir and the praise band together? How can a capela and instrumental worship coexist in the same service? Just because we can't see the answer now doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. Seeking God's creative imagination through these questions is, I think, the key to embracing a fuller representation of the Body of Christ.
By remembering that it isn't about us, we can then take time to come closer towards consensus, even if it takes a decade or longer. We, as the Body, can continue to grow in that interim, maybe even because of that interim, and the interim doesn't hinder what the church is – a relational community showing and being Christ in, to, and for the world.
The alternative is to bring people into the church through personal evangelism. And use the assembly to build up the disciples (Heb 10:24-25, 1 Cor 14:26). The whole idea of attracting outsiders through the style of the Sunday morning service misses the point, and displaces the intended purpose of the assembly.
"Change is hard."
Amen. There are, however, techniques that make it easier. Too often, I have seen church leaders take the attitude of, "This is for Christ, so people will understand."
This is for Christ – TRUE
People will understand – WISHFUL
Alan, in 1 Corinthians 14 it was when the body was being edified that the visitors said, "God is surely among you!"
Jay,
I heard imonk saying some of the same things I've heard you say – that you do not go all one way or the other, that the younger submit to the older and vice versa. It is when we are each insisting on "our way" (even if we claim it is Christ's way) as THE way that we lose identity as the church and the body of Christ. It was imonk's concern for the lady who missed singing in the choir that sparked the rant. But (he said) it wasn't about the music as much as it was about the callous way in which she was dismissed.
I thought he really nailed it when he wrote, "Any gifted showman can attract a crowd. Any gifted program director can design and run an organization that will get and keep people involved in activities. It is being done all over the country. But who is forming the community in which Christ is central and spiritual roots sink deep, where people are being encouraged to have quiet hearts that pay attention to what God is doing, sensitive hearts that pick up on subtle signs that a brother or sister needs attention, thoughtful hearts devoted to study, meditation, prayer, and contemplation, hospitable hearts that welcome the neighbor and are open to the stranger? Who is encouraging the kind of worship that forms such hearts? Who is providing the grace and space, the otium sanctum—the holy leisure—the silence and intimate conversation by which they are formed?"
Yes, but it wasn't because they liked the music 😉 The effect on visitors was a side effect, not the primary purpose of the assembly.
Jerry,
The fact that an outsider might have a certain reaction is not the same thing as a certain outsider reaction being the *purpose* or *aim* of the assembly.
–guy
Jay,
You wrote:
"Yes, many churches use music as part of an attractional strategy, but what is the alternative? To use music that drives people away? To care more about the tastes of the long-time members than visitors and young members?
Should we be unconcerned with the emotional state created by the music?"
This is just a false dichotomy.
You later wrote:
"The critical question, therefore, isn’t how to keep everyone happy"
What's the alternative? To try and keep everyone unhappy?
Claiming that outsider or young people attractiveness is not the purpose of the assembly is not the same as nor does it imply that the purpose of the assembly is to repulse outsiders or young people.
–guy
Not really. It was when the visitor was convicted about his sin by the prophesying (preaching the Word!) by the Christians.
Guy & Alan,
Perhaps my comment to Alan was not clear. I did not mean to imply that evangelism was the purpose of the assembly. The purpose of the assembly, in 1 Corinthians 14, clearly is the edification of the body. That outsiders were there was incidental to that purpose. My comment was intended to suggest that when we attend to the real purpose of the assembly, that outsiders as well as members will be blessed. The corollary to that is that if we gear the assembly to outsiders instead of to the members of the body, there is a good chance that the entire meaning of the assembly will be changed – and in a way that will not be to the glory of God or to the blessing of any of those present in the assembly. This can mean that not even the "seeker" is fully blessed in a "seeker service" – at least not in the same way that Paul recognized in 1 Cor. 14.
I am sorry that my somewhat elliptical comment to Alan was not clear. Perhaps this will clarify things for you. My later comment addressed to Jay brings out some of the same points the two of you were making, points Jay has made at other times but which I feared he had overlooked in his response to imonk. The assembly is to be about the business of Christ being formed in each member of the congregation. When we focus on that and model that, other matters will take care of themselves. We do not model Christ if we dismiss any member of the assembly in a cavalier manner – neither the young, the old, the newcomer, the old-timer, the rich, the poor, the middle-classed suburbanite, the inner-city ghetto dweller – nor any other person whoever it might be (even if he or she is not even a member of the body of Christ).
We are in complete agreement.
Jerry,
Beautifully stated.
–guy
This sounds interesting… The only worship "instruction" I've ever considered to be given was in the Corinthian church and there seemed to be a lot of freedom constrained only by order… other than the matter of actually speaking in tongues without an interpreter… some had a song to sing, others a word of encouragement or edification to speak…seems Paul allowed it all to happen so long as it was done in order…no one got left out… I'm guessing this was before the Baptists starting beating us to the best seats at the cafeteria.. then the priority shifted to finishing up by a certain time so we could get out of the parking lot by 12:15… Maybe we should just break for lunch and a nap and be back by 6…hmmm.
Eating together needs to be part of our worship! (That presents problems for me – my husband is not a believer and does not attend – so I decline what few lunch invitations I have had)
Wendy…I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that Jay will probably speak to the fellowship nature of the assembly sometime during his posting on this topic…I'm guessing that will be so because the fellowship meal was such an integral part of the day….Actually, sharing a meal was a very important part of the social fabric of that day…and to a great degree our own… Perhaps sharing a meal with another couple on a different day than Sunday would put your husband at ease. Some of us tend to want to bang people over the head with our Bible rather than just be a friend and neighbor…I don't even like eating lunch with those folks !!
Todd,
Thanks. I think that's very insightful.
Twisters wrote,
"By remembering that it isn't about us, we can then take time to come closer towards consensus, even if it takes a decade or longer."
It's not so much "not about us" as "not about me." As others have noted, the assembly is targeted toward the edification of the members — primarily. That makes it about us — but, of course, "about us" in the way God wants it be about us.
The key question, which we'll be pondering for awhile, is: what is "edification"? Is edification getting to hear your favorite hymns? Getting to sing in the choir that you love?
Before we can even approach the questions raised by iMonk, we have to sort through — from the scriptures — what edification is. And I think the conventional thought in this area is badly askew.
JerryStarling,
I disagree with what you quote from iMonk. I agree with the heart of what he says, but not the methods.
"But who is forming the community in which Christ is central and spiritual roots sink deep, where people are being encouraged to have quiet hearts that pay attention to what God is doing, sensitive hearts that pick up on subtle signs that a brother or sister needs attention, thoughtful hearts devoted to study, meditation, prayer, and contemplation, hospitable hearts that welcome the neighbor and are open to the stranger? Who is encouraging the kind of worship that forms such hearts?"
Where is it written that the goal of the assembly is to form "quiet hearts that pay attention to what God is doing, sensitive hearts that pick up on subtle signs that a brother or sister needs attention, thoughtful hearts devoted to study, meditation, prayer, and contemplation."
Yes, we should pay attention to what God is doing. Yes, we should be sensitive to our brothers and sisters. But how does the assembly — the being together — teach us to be quiet? You see, my favorite time of the assembly is when it's the loudest — before, after, and when we have our "meet and greet."
Talking to each other, encouraging each other, hugging each other, inviting each other, consoling each other — to me, that's much of the essence of the assembly. I can be quiet, meditate, contemplate, and study at home. I can only teach and learn from teachers in community. I can only discuss, challenge, and be challenged in community. I like my assemblies loud.
The notion that the assembly is about quiet, pensive, internal meditation seems obviously wrong to me. The model for the assembly isn't a library or a hermitage, but a common meal. And quiet meals are lonely and sad. Who wants to eat alone? Who wants to eat with someone else while both diners pensively stare off into space?
There's a time and place for quietness, but not when we're together.
I had to look up "otium sanctum" — I guess because I'm not a fan of the currently fashionable push for individualistic spiritual disciplines. The phrase is taken from Augustine of Hippo. http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=1606
"In his later writings, he called the monastic life otium sanctum (holy free time), i.e., a monk was freed from world obligations so that, by study of the Scriptures and by prayer, he could better serve the church in whichever manner was required of him."
We all need to find quiet times in our lives. But the assembly wasn't designed to serve that purpose.
As I type, most of my family is on vacation for spring break. I couldn't make the trip, but I'm enjoying the time made available for study and meditation. So I'm having a week of otium sanctum. And that's good.
But the assembly is not otium sanctum. Some congregations and some denominations practice an assembly that's quiet and entirely vertical in its worship, but I don't think that's the biblical purpose of the assembly.
Guy,
You are exactly correct. It is a false dichotomy. So what's a better alternative than an attractional strategy?
JerryStarling wrote,
"The assembly is to be about the business of Christ being formed in each member of the congregation."
I think that's very insightful.
"The assembly is to be about the business of Christ being formed in each member of the congregation"… that may be very insightful but it also may not be very realistic. The statement seems a bit CofCie to me, i.e., there's a "right way" to do Church. I think there are many acceptable ways to do Church and it's up to the individual to find the Church that does it their way. Now before you jump on me, I'm not saying that we ignore the bible. But, within the confines of biblical teaching there are many ways the Church can acceptably choose to worship together.
The Church of my youth had a Choir and sang hymns out of a hymnbook. They, unlike most Independent Christian Churches, choose not to embrace the Praise Band worship. They also closed their doors about 3 years ago (when I was about 20 yrs old and leading singing this Church averaged over 400 at worship time) and choose to give the Building and Land to a ethnically diverse, praise band singing group. The new owners tore the Choir loft and piano/organ space out of the front of the Church and built a stage. Now it hurts me to think of this happening… but that's exactly what happened. I understand the new group is doing well.
My wife, a vocal music major, told me years ago that someday she would sing classical music in the worship setting. She felt a need to experience this because of her love of music and worship. The time came when we had to make a Church move and she went to sing in an Episcopalian Church. About 6 months later, I joined her at the Church and in the Choir. That experience lasted 12 years and I came to love the music we sang and the liturgy. I still miss the worship I experienced there but the time came when my wife and I had to leave. I don't regret any of these 12 years.
I now worship at a non-IM CofC. It's a good group of people who could still loosen up a bit. Our worship could loosen up a bit too. We usually do the same things in the same order week after week. I see about 3 groups of people in this one Church. There's a older crowd who can't give up meeting in the Church building 3 times a week… life groups aren't an option for them although they have one after Sunday evening services at a local resturant. There's a group of people who would embrace change but won't because it would cause hard feelings with their Mothers and Dads and other relatives. And, there's a group of people who would love to shake things up a bit. Maybe sing all the songs at the start worship. Maybe do something special at communion time. Maybe let a member speak of his spiritual journey in worship…maybe let a member speak of Her spiritual journey during worship.
All I'm saying is I have experienced 3 very different modes of worship. I have learned and benefited from all of them. One thing I have learned is I'll never find a perfect Church. So, I've quit trying.
I'm disturbed by the notion that, if I have a talent, I can reasonably expect it to be used in the church. Use of my talents is not for the purpose of making me feel better about church. It's about building up the body. If my talent doesn't build up the body — or if there is not a need for another person with my talent right now — then maybe the right thing is for me to serve in another way. In a church full of accountants, not everyone can do the church's books. If there are a hundred professional singers in a church, they can't all sing solos every Sunday. In 1 Cor 14, we learn that if there are more than two or three prophets in a church, not all of them get to prophesy in the assembly. If there are tongue speakers but no interpreters, then the tongue speaker must "hold his tongue." It's not about what makes the talented person feel good. It's about what builds up the church.
There. Now that I got that off my chest… 😉
I left a response at the later post, but I'm afraid Pastor Mike feels too wounded to be able to discuss the matter.
We can't expect to do all of our outreach outside of our churches as he proposes; those beginning to believe will want to know what worship is like and will visit. Taking the position that gathered worship isn't for them, but for believers, will do nothing to make them feel welcome and comfortable.
Alan, I would suggest to you that the "activity" recorded in I Cor 14 wasn't the product of a "talent" but rather the product of "Spiritual Empowerment." There is a huge difference. And, yet Paul allowed all who had an edification to share it.. He specifically instructed the church NOT to squelch speaking in tongues..There wasn't a "time limit" on church as I can recall…The "get in and get out" mentality of many churches today doesn't allow for much freedom and flow of the Spirit…
Keith,
You:
"We can't expect to do all of our outreach outside of our churches as he proposes;"
'Outreach' happening inside the church and church assemblies being designed for 'outreach' are not the same. Prospects being welcomed and comforted and the church assembly being designed for their welcome and comfort are not the same. i understand the author to be criticizing the latter in each case.
–guy
I understood the same thing, guy.
Alan,
I agree. Talents are to be used in service of others — not because you enjoy using them. It's not about me.
If you have a talent for singing and can lead others into a more worshipful experience though song leading or a choir, what's wrong with that?
Doug,
Nothing at all. But should you complain that the church doesn't have a choir for you to sing in — if you can still sing as part of the congregation and the leadership has concluded that your ministry and talents would be better used elsewhere? Does the church have an obligation to let you serve the way you want to?
Jay,
There may be no obligation but there's also no reason that such a person shouldn't look for a Church where their talents can be put to use. Let's be serious… when a Church tells or acts in a way that leads a person to the conclusion the Church is saying "we're sorry but we have no use for your particular talent", that person is very likely to being looking for a Church that can use what they have to offer.
Doug…I agree..and I question why that person should feel guilty…I don't see the "church" as being one particular group of people or building structure…I see the CHURCH as being universal…I would have a hard time telling someone who honestly believed God was calling them into a ministry for which they were uniquely equipped where their present fellowship was unable or unwilling to use them that they were sinning or being in rebellion..I would rather encourage them… I guess it depends on one's definition of Church…
Doug,
I've got to disagree in this instance. The iMonk article is about a woman who sang in the church choir. She chose to continue to attend her church and then sing in another congregation's choir — which I have no problem with — because she didn't leave.
The church didn't say she couldn't sing, only that she couldn't sing in the choir. She could still sing with her brothers and sisters in the congregation.
More fundamentally, if members leave every time they don't get to use their talents as they wish, the leaders won't be able to lead. We are not individuals. We are part of a body, and we have to work together — in concert (as it were).
And if the leaders prayerfully concluded that a choir is no longer an effective ministry (and they were surely right), why should the members insist on "serving" in an ineffective ministry?
A while back, my church canceled Sunday night services in order to have small groups. Sunday nights had very low numbers and accomplished very little for the kingdom. But there were some men who were no longer able to lead singing and preach on Sunday nights. Should they have left to use their talents elsewhere?
They didn’t. They stayed and some wound up helping to lead small groups — using many of the same talents. Others found other ways to serve — ways that were of far greater value to the kingdom.
That's a servant heart, and churches cannot be churches without servant hearts.
Jay…how is moving from one "congregation" to another "congregation" leaving the CHURCH if each congregation is a part of the CHURCH ?? Can a member move to be near aging parents? Can they move because the just want to move to another part of the world ? What if they buy a house in another part of the city where another congregation is now much more convenient…Is convenience a sinful criteria ? I find it all rather legalistic…what am I missing ?
Doug, we don't just just one "talent" (spiritual gift) to use in the work of the church. If the local congregation does not need the gift which is most prominent, perhaps it's time to grow and develop other spiritual gifts? I'm a teacher. My congregation does not use my gift of teaching. There is an abundance of teachers. However I have other spiritual gifts I can employ in different ministries.
Christianity is about so much more than singing during worship. A healthy disciple in healthy ministry will be deeply connected to multiple other Christians and will be busy encouraging, helping, serving in many ways (most of which occurs outside the public assemblies). If that's the case, then it would never even be considered to change congregations over a small matter like singing in the choir. And if that's not the case, then they should be looking for a solution regardless of the singing situation. The fact that someone would consider changing congregations over such a matter indicates a lot of shallowness, to me.
Alan…so what if you disciple example were indeed connected to multiple other Christians, mostl occuring outside the assembly, and these other Christians were connected to differing congregations. Perhaps your disciple connected in an exceptional way to another group in another congregation within the CHURCH…you're saying that your disciple would be shallow minded to change congregations ? Would somebody please show me where one house church limited its members from meeting in other house churches !!
The scenario you described is reasonable IMO. My point is that changing congregations merely to get opportunities to sing in a choir ignores other, far more important factors.
Jay,
You said "And if the leaders prayerfully concluded that a choir is no longer an effective ministry (and they were surely right)"… Where does that conclusion come from? I was a Church leader (both Deacon and Elder) for 25 years and in those years I know that I made some poor decisions despite my prayers. I know that I will never be a formal Church Leader (Elder, Deacon) in the CofC where I presently reside because of my past religious life… I am looked at with considerable suspicion. If I felt that my talents were most useful in Church leadership,and at one point in my life I did feel that way, I would likely look for a Church that could use my experience instead of being suspicious of it. But, I no longer want that kind of role and instead have worked sucessfully to bring new ministry to my Church in other places.
I have to agree with Price. There is no reason for a person who feels led by God to serve in a ministry to stay at a Church who refuses to use that ministry, It makes no difference what that ministry might be…Worship, Leadership, prayer, We have a person in our Church who faithfully sends out Birthday and Anniversary cards to members and I think that's a nice ministry regardless of what the Elders might think. With regard to the ministry of Worship, I wouldn't lift it a bit higher than a Birthday Card ministry in its' worth to the ministry provider. I have worshipped in 3 distict ways…Independent Christian Church, Episcoplian, and CofC. Without regard to their differing theology or religious heritage, I have found it possible to worship God in each of these Churches. I understand that many who contribute to this blog could never feel that way but I don't think that neccesarily makes them right.
Doug
Jay,
Several. i'm not pushing any as the right one, but i think it's obvious that we can imagine a host of ends other than attracting the visitor.
Perhaps worship should primarily be aimed at the individual believer in some way. Maybe convicting, or attracting, or emotionally stirring, or encouraging, or educating and indoctrinating, or training in certain behaviors, etc.
Perhaps worship should primarily be aimed at the community of believers in some way. Maybe building personal relationships, or creating and strengthening a collective identity, or motivating and building mutual loyalties, or unifying around certain purposes or beliefs, etc.
Perhaps worship should primarily be aimed at ritual. Maybe putting the greatest skill or detail or ornateness in ceremony, etc.
Just to pose a couple. But notice, adopting any of the above doesn't necessarily imply an deliberate effort (or even the side effect) to repulse visitors.
–guy
Price,
I said no such thing. I wrote,
"More fundamentally, if members leave every time they don't get to use their talents as they wish, the leaders won't be able to lead. We are not individuals. We are part of a body, and we have to work together — in concert (as it were)."
"That's a servant heart, and churches cannot be churches without servant hearts."
I don't think it's possible to write out a set of rules for when it's proper to leave a church, but I do think that leaving should not be done lightly or for selfish reasons. It has to be about Jesus and his Kingdom. It's not about me.
Doug,
I said the leaders were likely right to eliminate the choir for two reasons.
First, they are the leaders of the church, are trying to move the church in a better direction, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. There's no reason to assume they had malicious motives or acted foolishly.
Second, as a rule, choir music is only popular for those raised in a churches with choir music. In the early 20th Century, it was a popular style generally — which is why some early movies have sound tracks with choirs singing. It sounds really, really old fashioned today to those not a part of a choir religious tradition. (Just try to find a CD of choir music in the record store!)
Therefore, if a church doesn't want its services to feel foreign to new members and converts, choir music should be replaced.
Now, some churches have managed to adapt their choirs to more contemporary musical forms and so keep them within the contemporary cultural context. But not all churches have the leadership or talent to do so.
And the leadership could certainly have concluded that they didn't want to dedicate that much of the members' and staff's time to choir — preferring to have the members engage in more missional activities.
That's not to say that all churches everywhere must get rid of their choirs — only that if a church's leadership decides to move to more contemporary musical styles in an effort to better contextualize the gospel, they are likely right to do so. I wouldn't presume to substitute my judgment for theirs.
Jay….you keep referring to a person "LEAVING" a church…So what ? They are NOT leaving THE Church…Why is there ANY consternation about moving from one room to another room within THE Church ?? It appears there is some sort of internal interpretation that says this particular gathering of people is THE Church and if somebody moves from THE Church then there better be good reason…It seems to me that if someone moves from Gathering A to Gathering B that have never left THE Church..so why the legalist viewpoint of what constitutes an appropriate "move." I see no reason to assign a measurement of motive at all…
I'm hoping you can shed some good ole BCV on me about why a person shouldn't move in and out of ANY congregational gathering of THE Church for whatever reason they so choose. I know I must have misread something because this all sounds like the ole US versus THEM mentality… I thought we were all THE Church…
Price,
(Heb 13:17 ESV) 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
(1Th 5:12-13 ESV) 12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.
I personally think it takes a pretty big stretch to apply these two verses to whether a Church has a choir or not…even more of a stretch to conclude that a person shouldn't attend a 2nd Church in order to be able to worship by singing music to the Lord in Choir and assisting the congregation in thier singing. The best Choir I ever sung with always sang this before we left the Choir room on Sunday morning.
"Bless us oh Lord who minister in thy temple
Grant that what we sing with our lips we may believe in our hearts
And what we believe in our hearts
We may show forth in our life
Amen"
I don't know what this has to do with the CofC anyway since most of them think a Choir is doesn't comply with "the rules" of worship.
Wonder what the thoughts are when an entire congregation (e.g. Oak Hills in San Antonio) leaves the denominational affiliation and simply sinks into Christianity at large as a non denominational church?
Just curious and I don't intend to pursue it very far.
Hesed,
Randall
Jay…there is no douibt that one should voluntarily submit to the leadership of the local gathering, although we ARE called as a gathering to require the Eldership to adhere to sound theologically doctrine. But this verse does not enslave me to any particular gathering. If I leave one gathering and begin a relationship with a new gathering, this Hebrews verse would require me to submit to the leadership of this new gathering…There is absolutely no inspired instruction to the Eldership to force a member into a lifelong membership in a particular gathering. Absent any specific instruction, and avoiding the CENI viewpoint, there is freedom.
I believe you indicated in response to some question regarding IM that during the first century church there were MANY house churches within a particular area. Many. However, it seems that there weren't Elders appointed in each house church but rather in each city or area which would have included MANY churches… People were free to move among various house churches or gatherings as they so pleased. Is that still your understanding ??
It seems that our Tradition of having a separate building and separate Eldership on every other street corner may have contributed to this present difference of opinion as well as our seperatist attitudes toward those that aren't really a part of the Lord's Church as we are…THE Church as established by Jesus didn't have rules for the divisions we have created. I find it difficult to establish rules of conduct for members of the church that the Holy Spirit didn't initiate.
If we had not created these divisions and if a particular gathering had a choir that a member could use their talent to advance the Kingdom and to glorify the Lord, then an Elder would be out of line in chastizing that member for choosing to do so. In fact, that Elder should have encouraged that member to seek a gathering where her talents and/or spiritual gifts could be more fully developed and utlized…That Elder, absent a seperatist attitude would perhaps have called around to the other Elders in the area to help this member of THE CHURCH find a gathering that would have nourished and encouraged her talent…Because the duty of the Elder isn't to the gathering but to THE Church…IMHO
You used the phrase, "sinks into Christianity at large as a non denominational church"…. Sounds to me like what the original intent was..!!!
Price,
Yes, I believe the phrase "sink into Christianity at large" is from the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery written by Barton W. Stone and several others. I didn't look it up to be sure the quote was precisely the same, but the intent was there.
It may be noteworthy that the theology at Oak Hills is different than most CofCs, but not so different that too many here would take exception to it. My understanding is that their theology is consistent with what one might find at a Bible Church or Community Church – yes, that covers a lot of ground and includes some significant differences within those groups.
Hesed,
Randall
Price,
Granted that the NT churches appear to have had a city-wide eldership with the "church" in, say, Ephesus meeting in many smaller house "churches." That is, in the NT "church" is used in three senses —
* The church universal
* The church in a given city — under the oversight of a citywide eldership
* A house church, which is a subset of the first two
Obviously, we are not presently organized this way. But we do have churches with elderships.
Notice that the verses I cited refer to submission to the elders. In a city with a city-wide eldership — one church meeting in multiple house churches — a transfer from one house church to another would not be contrary to submission to the elders as you'd be under the same eldership before and after — unless the elders objected to the transfer for some pragmatic reason (the need not to overburden a given house church, for example).
But in a city with multiple elderships, transferring from one congregation to another may indicate a failure to submit to the leadership. Not always, but sometimes.
Today, if an eldership chooses to disfellowship a member, the member will often just transfer to another church in town, thereby frustrating the eldership's efforts to follow scriptural mandates (and disfellowshipping, although often done wrong, can be done right).
If the elders believe the members need to be more involved in God's mission, a lazy member might transfer to a less motivated church just to remain useless and comfortable.
The reason someone leaves matters — a lot. And it's not necessary to sort through all the good and bad reasons to see that there are bad reasons to leave, some of which involve rebellion against scriptural leadership.
And that means someone who leaves over worship issues doesn't automatically get a free pass. Rather, the hard questions have to asked: why leave? Were the elders violating scripture? Were they sinfully motivated? Are you putting yourself above the mission the church? Are you avoiding a legitimate call to serve? Are you being Christ-like in your decision? Does your move build the Kingdom?
Yes, there's freedom but —
(Gal 5:13 ESV) 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
How does transferring between churches in town serve someone other than yourself? Well, it might — but not always.
And so, we can fairly ask, are you changing churches to be shaped into a better servant or to be better served? And no rationalization is allowed.
Jay,
Elders should be respected and even obeyed but does that mean that they always make correct decisions? I would submit that the sectarian nature of the CofC answers that question with a resounding "No!". The public response by the elders of some CofC near to Richland Hills after they added IM worship is a prime example of incorrect decision making.
My freedom in Christ allows me to attend whatever Church I choose and if I become convinced that the Eldership in a Church is making poor decisions, that enters into my decision making. No Christian should have to "tough it out" when their elders are making bad decisions.
I don't know if the decision to cancel the Choir at the Church we've been discussing was a good one or not. I do remember the first time I heard a really good Choir sing with a pipe organ in a worship service… I was amazed and delighted. There is still a place for Churches with good Choirs… that particular Church might not be that place but there are still some people like me that love that tradition.
This comment really would be more appropriate on another post, but I couldn't find one on baptism and unity. This is copied from Leroy Garrett's occasional newsletter. At the end I will supply a link for those that might be interested.
We can better appreciate Stone’s attraction to Jesus’ prayer in John 17 when we keep in mind three propositions that influenced his thinking, as well as that of other of our pioneers: (1) The mission of the church is to win the world for Christ; (2) But a divided church cannot win a lost world; (3) The only way to unity is the proclamation of the simple, apostolic gospel of hrist. This kind of thinking led Stone to identify four kinds of unity, three of which are false. “Book unity” is false because it is based on the creeds of men; “Head unity” is false in that it depends on conformity of opinions or theology; “Water unity” is false because we can practice baptism alike and still not be of one mind ad heart.
Stone found true unity, “fire unity,” he called it, and by this he meant the unity that is the gift of the Holy Spirit. He saw this in these words in Jesus’ prayer in John 17:22: “And the glory which You gave Me I have given to them, that they may be one just as We are one.” Jesus here identifies the means or the source of unity as God’s glory, which Stone understood to be the presence of God in the form of the Holy Spirit.
Stone is saying that believers are united when each one is filled with the Holy Spirit and bears the fruit of Christlikeness. The Pentecostal “fire” of Christ’s presence is what unites us. The Spirit’s fruit of love, joy, and peace is what makes us one. Stone believed, as did Paul, that unity is “of the Spirit,” as Ephesians 4:3 reveals, a gift to be claimed.
******************************************************************
We will add your name to our mailing list upon request and at no cost to you. All the essays may be accessed at http://www.leroygarrett.org, along with other of my writings. For the essays click on Soldier On.
I'm guessing Jay that the only world in which this could happen is the perfect one…One where all Elders in a specific congregation agreed 100% all the time.. Where the former 2 dozen divisions of the CoC have united under one agreed upon doctrine so that one Elder isn't going to condemn to hell a person that is doing something that another Elder approves of…and that's just in the CoC….I'm underwhelmed with the possibility of that happening !!
One Elder group wants to sanction…another wants to help free from theological oppression…One Group claims the person is a false Teacher, another group welcomes him as an insightful and gifted teacher… One Elder's group doesn't think a choir is important, another thinks it is.. I'm a gifted singer…I move to where I am appreciated and used for the glory of God..I'm going to feel ashamed for that? Not !! When the Elders can't agree then the member shouldn't be held in contempt…
There is a concern about trouble makers that is something to try and avoid.. Our good Baptist brothers have a membership transfer letter that is required to place membership in another location…it's not a perfect system but it does bring to attention any matter than might need some discussion…Of course within the independent CoC churches, Lord knows what that letter might say !!
Didn't some church in Oklahoma take out a full page ad in the local paper denouncing another CoC for having IM ?? Wow…imagine the emotional and mental control going on in that place…
Jay:
You and others have heard it from me before (and perhaps are tired of it), but perhaps others reading the blog have not.
Much of the issue that the Evangelical world and the Restoration Movement (and virtually everyone else) faces is the lack of singing the Word together. As I have mulled over Ephesians 5:18-21 during the past five years and sang and listened to others, I have noticed with clarity how little we sing Scripture. It may be that our small children sing Scripture in their Bible classes more than the congregation sings such as we assemble together. Let's sing many of their songs together — and turn down the amps some! We may see a resulting surge of all singing — including our small children (who can get drowned out by the praise team and/or band amped to high vol. And you already know my encouragement regarding how a band needs to cease the drums/et.al. and sing….).
The worship wars will continue — with Satan in the background — if all we strive for is emotional building — without an important building of understanding.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jay:
Separately, thought I would comment specifically on the below comment by you (you might have expected me to :-):
"Hmm … I’m not sure I buy the argument. Yes, many churches use music as part of an attractional strategy, but what is the alternative? To use music that drives people away? To care more about the tastes of the long-time members than visitors and young members?"
iMonk has said exactly what some Baptist friends of mine have noted with candor. And you do not buy it? American popular religion is caught in a very real struggle that is part of the dominion of darkness (Col. 1:13). How many churches try to match or exceed the powerful draw of secular concerts?
The alternative is to sing the Word together (and yes, such may drive some away, as Paul noted in his Corinthian letter: To some his teaching was the aroma of life; to others the smell of death). It is more than a matter of "taste" and emotion. Yes our feelings matter. But what about Ephesians 4:17ff., Jay? That teaching to a region much like our nation has been sitting in clear view for a very long time.
Our worship and song needs to be one-another, selfless congregational action.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Randall,
Thanks. I would recommend a subscription to Leroy Garrett's Occasional Essays to everyone. Readers can subscribe at http://www.leroygarrett.org/soldieron/default.htm
I don't think Leroy's writings are available via RSS, but you can get back issues at the same URL.