It was off manuscript, with just an outline, and there were some mic issues. Let it be. If you'd like to listen online, see below.
[audio https://fscchapel.dc1.netfirms.com/fscchapel.com/BryantSermon120510.mp3]
If you'd like to download it, you can do that as well by clicking here.
You won't find many more people more excited and driven to continue and advance with contemporary worship music than me. I love Hillsong. I think that most of the work that they do has advanced American Christianity. In many ways, for the better. But they miss the point on so many occasions. I can't help but think that this just is a bit...over the top.
Maybe sometime when I don't have studying to tend to I'll talk more about how I think that production in these services can work toward a higher goal and so we ought not be so quick to judge the work that they are doing to advance the Kingdom, but my first glance's reaction to this video was...a little bit of outrage.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started having Coke cups on stage because they had all of the sudden secured a sponsor.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHKeVmuQ8V4]
Thanks to Bryan Browning for the link.
-B
My parents sent me this. Awesome. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9XNfWNooz4]
-B
I've been a fan of well done kinetic typography (music or spoken word put to motion) for a while. This is by far the best one I have seen. I watched it three times, and each time noticed things I hadn't before.
Phenomenal work. I'm sure it was hours of labor-intensive work with Adobe's After Effects, but well worth the effort.
Devote the next three and a half minutes of your life to it.
Jonathan Coulton's "Shop Vac" (art and animation done by Jarrett Heather)
[vimeo=http://vimeo.com/17419652 w=640&h=360]
[Found via Daring Fireball]
Many churches are starting to use this moving text idea in worship services as a means of projecting lyrics for congregational singing. Sometimes it is done well. Most of the time, it is annoying.
This clip above proves that it is possible to do, and to do well. We are a visual culture, and perhaps the lyrical display of text can add to the intention of the song...so as to be better understood.
I thought that it was worth sharing.
-B
A few weeks back, I wrote this on my Facebook wall:
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he took the entire museum of old Apple computers and gave it to Stanford in an effort to stop looking back and start looking forward. No longer did Apple worry about what had happened but it began to focus on who it was and where it was going to go. Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is. What would it look like if every church tore down its walls and started over? It would send a message for sure.
The question posed saw more responses than I imagined. (I won't include a permalink to the conversation because Facebook's privacy policies are iffy at best and I haven't asked permission to post any one person's comments.)
The part that I choose to focus on here is: "Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is."
In order to understand this fully, you'll need to understand a few things:
1) I'm slightly obsessed with Apple Inc.'s product line.
2) I'm significantly impressed with the work that Steve Jobs has done at Apple. (and much of that respect leads to number one being a reality)
3) I get criticized quite a bit for being so Apple centric. (It's ok, courage of my own convictions)
4) I think quite a bit about the dying mainline churches and what might save them.
You'll also need to understand the history of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) and the highs and lows that the company has been through. If you aren't that up to date, don't worry, you can get the basics here. The important part is that Steve came back and revamped much of the company to turn it into what it is today.
My question posed above resulted in several responses both on Facebook and in person(reminder: name omitted):
"Steve Jobs isn't Jesus"
"Is the church a product?"
"The Church does not have "products;" the Church is not something that can be marketed."
"I'm not sure how [John] Wesley would have felt about the church having products..."
"I'm game."
"The church absolutely is marketable if that means sharing via medium other than word of mouth although you can certainly say that inevitably has flaws also."
"Bryant, you love Apple too much."
"Rather than us forming the Church into what we think it should be, we should be asking the questions about why we haven't allowed the Church to form us."
There were more, but now you have an assortment.
In trying to understand this more fully, I did some thinking and ended up at my bookshelf. I noticed that there were a lot of books on it that had to do with the Church and in one way or another the world (and therefore, the Church's relationship to it). I took a picture of all of them.
There are lots more. Written by all kinds of people: bloggers, Pastors, missionaries, seminary professors, and Apostles.
As far as I can see it, the question of "Does The Church Have Products?" stems off of this struggle with where the Church fits into our everyday lives. In the midst of the dying Church (some stats peg the United Methodist Church to have lost 6 million in membership over the past 50 years), we question whether the Church is still "relevant" to our lives. The body of Christ-as a whole-has responded by creating magazines to investigate this, commercials to combat this, and books (see above) to discuss this.
Naturally, churches have moved to worldly ways of getting the word out about their relevancy in order to attract new people. As a result, we have seen the rise of a few things: Contemporary worship music (no longer boring services), stylish preachers (think gel'd hair and tight jeans), new looking buildings (the warehouse look is in), and advertisements on billboards (we all know who the churches with the money are).
This is scary to many. Especially (as I am learning) to seminary students.
Because here we are learning about the history of the Church, the mistakes and progression its made, and somehow this new fangled worldly marketing is scary. Rob Bell even mentioned in his book Velvet Elvis that he was appalled when he saw a sign advertising his new church.
"The thought of the word church and the word marketing in the same sentence makes me sick."
Rob Bell argued that people had to "want" to find the church. they had no advertisements, no flyers, no promotions, no signs.
The first week they had 1000 people in attendance. (People on Amazon.com's reviews of the book argue that Bell came from another giant church as an associate and so his name was probably already known to the area and his follower base was already there. I can't vouch for those facts because I simply don't know, but it would explain quite a bit)
The bigger issue to me is not the marketing. I agree with Bell that if we break down our evangelism into "marketing", we have missed the boat. But that doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have products.
The obvious answer to whether or not the Church has products is "Yes, it does." For better or worse, it does. Products, as I see it, are the things that come out of the Church. The things that the Church produces. Perhaps we should stop and look at some of the products of the Church (as as to convince you more fully): pastors, businessmen, bad theology, good theology, morally responsible citizens, not-so-morally responsible citizens, worship music, "non-worship" music, art, advertising, love for the marginalized, hate for the marginalized, etc.
Things come out of the Church. Because the Church is a body of people. And bodies of people exist for a reason (whether or not they are aware of it). From our own nature, we exist to produce. And so, we have products.
Here's where Steve hit it on the head in his return to Apple. Apple had too many products. One of the famous stories centered around Apple's printer production. He asked, "our printers suck, why are we making them?" They stopped making them. They later gave up on the Newton project because Steve said "handwriting is the slowest form of input". When something wasn't working, they gave it up. The started again and worked on it until was good. Then, when they debuted it again, they told people about it. And, because it was worth having, people flocked to it. In a mixture of simplifying and revamping, Apple turned around from being nearly bankrupt to being the powerhouse and influence that it is today. That's how the Newton turned into the iPhone.
So the Church has products. But the products aren't what we tell people about. Or at least maybe we shouldn't. Jesus is what we tell people about. Or what we should tell people about.
Here's my proposition: Jesus isn't the Church's product. To say that he is would be to commit heresy. But, our perception and portrayal of Jesus IS a product of the Church. And sometimes, that is messed up. So perhaps we need to examine how we are portraying both Jesus and ourselves to the world. If we can re imagine a better way to be the Church and the body of Christ, we could score big. Maybe then evangelism would be what it needs to be. Maybe then disciples would be created instead of just church attendees. Maybe then people would fall in love with Jesus through the Church instead of falling in love with the music.
Of course the Church has products. If it didn't, it wouldn't contribute to the world. That would be a shame.
Evangelism is the key to the Church's growth. Proper evangelism comes from discipleship. All these things take care of each other. We ought to be more aware of how progression in culture effects us and what we can glean from it in order to better ourselves. The Church is a God-ordained body that exists to spread his name and glory so that more may grow in their pursuit of Christ-like life and perfection. But it is made up of imperfect humans that try their best. Sometimes, we just have to be realistic and trust that God will work through our imperfect products.
-B
P.S. - I've had the opportunity to help start two churches now from scratch. We talk about marketing in a live or die fashion. These churches cannot exist without people knowing about them. Word of mouth is great (and the best form of spreading the news) but sometimes isn't enough. We aren't looking to be huge, we aren't looking to be a mega-church, we are looking to survive. Many who have argued against me (though admittedly not all) have not started a church from scratch. I would highly recommend that those who have not had that opportunity, need to have it. It is an important experience full of highs and lows. For those who think they know the "right path", it is a nice reality check.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdCd7XpS91U&] Precious cornerstone, sure foundation You are faithful to the end We are waiting, on You, Jesus We believe You're all to us
Let the glory of Your name be the passion of the Church Let the righteousness of God be a holy flame that burns Let the saving love of Christ be the measure of our lives We believe You're all to us
Only Son of God sent from Heaven Hope and mercy at the cross You are everything, You're the Promise Jesus, You are all to us
You're all to us You're all to us You're all to us Yes, You are
When this passing world is over We will see You face to face And forever we will worship Jesus, You are all to us
One of the things that I find myself thinking about a lot (at times, too much) is the actual experience of a worship service. I try my best to attend a variety of services and even participate in as much as possible in many different roles. I think it's because of the incredible amount of emotion that is called forth when people gather together to give praise to God that I am so drawn to it. A good worship service (no matter the style) evokes the emotions in a way that allows God to enter into the worshiper's heart. This is why we place things of the utmost importance (baptism, communion, etc) inside of these services. These times that we get together as a body of Christ are the times when we connect and grow together. They are important.
As I have mentioned several times, I was a child of the "contemporary movement". You know, guitars, keyboards, drums, lights, and gyms instead of sanctuaries.
It was my definition of church.
Because of this, we rehearsed music, dramas, transitions, and the like in order to create an experience that flowed well.
Those of us who still participate in this practice today get accused of making this experience a form of "entertainment". Like going to a movie theater. For a while, I nodded my head and bought into their arguments. I go to school with many of them.
They were, and still are, wrong.
The argument, as I best understand it, has to do with whether or not church should be entertaining. To them, if church is something that you can go to, enjoy, be anonymous, and not have to commit to, something is wrong. And...the argument is that this new form of worship enables this attitude toward worship and church. It was a fair argument because of the naming of the services. My home church growing up called the service, the "Seeker Service". The name implied that the real Christians, those no longer "seeking", went to another service. As if us Christians aren't always seeking. This implication wasn't the intention though. To outsiders, it may have seemed so.
The other half of the argument was the stupid part. Whether or not they admitted it, they just didn't like this form of worship. So the whole "holier than thou" mindset was a good way to argue against it instead of admitting that it worked.
I sang with the Duke Divinity Gospel choir the other day.
I have sung in worship services since before I can remember. I have led worship for big groups, small groups, in contemporary style, and sung in choirs in traditional services. I have even lead hymns from the guitar.
But I have never really sung in the tradition of the African American Church. One of the things that I noticed was the flow of the service. We sang our songs and the congregation followed along as well as they could. The songs went on for a long time, and involved both the choir and directors interacting with one another. The lead soloist lead us through "Sanctuary" and used techniques to interact with the congregation so that they were "along for the ride". It was awesome.
My realization: the service was truly creative. One of the songs we sang had two parts. The director lead us through it, showing us what to sing, when. There was no sort of "Verse, Chorus" outline prior to the service. It required him to interact with us and us with him. It required him to interact with the congregation.
It required creation to happen.
My belief is that God created us to be creative and I TRULY think that he is OFFENDED when we don't use those talents and gifts inside of our worship services.
Many advocates of traditional worship would argue that their organist is creative. He or she probably is. Many of them would argue that those who write the music for their services is creative. He or she probably is. Many of them would argue that their pastor is very creative. And then their friend sitting next to them (also an advocate) would elbow them in the side because they know that it isn't true.
But in that argument, they would argue against being even more creative in a contemporary setting. Why? Because they don't like it, it makes them uncomfortable, or it's hurting the attendance of their services.
Today I was reminded of what creativity in worship can include. These are pictures from a man who calls himself a "worship VJ" and uses software from Renewed Vision (primarily PropPresenter and ProVideoPlayer) to portray an immersive experience behind the musicians that are leading in worship. You can follow him on twitter at @worshipvj or his site at worshipvj.com
I think that this use of technology and creativity only adds to an experience that helps to connect those who participate, to God.
Lots of people disagree with me.
Again, I believe them to be wrong. I think God rejoices when we use the gifts he has given us to praise him in new ways.
If, somehow, this requires that the lights to have to come down, and that techniques that we used to only see either in movies or theaters have to be used, so be it. This is church. We should be incorporating the brilliance of God's creation in our ongoings before anyone else. And yet we don't. Because we are concerned about tradition.
And because we are wrong.
Let's rejoice in the variety of worship forms. Let's rejoice in creativity no matter where is appears. Let's rejoice in what God is doing in our churches, no matter their "style", and invite others to partake and experience it as well.
-B
**Apologies to those who got the preprocessed notification of this via email. My fat fingers accidentally hit the Publish button and there was no going back**
Proof. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzoK0BdzaM]
Most notably, please notice the lack of enthusiasm in the choir's faces. In contrast with the triumphal, majestic orchestral parts.
-B
Got this in an email. Thoughts? [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI&]
Is America the force for good in our world?
Should it be the church instead?
Auschwitz was rescued by military forces, not peaceful forces. Is that a good thing? Would peace have ever prevailed?
What does it mean to be American in today's world?
Are we the same country with the same values that we had originally?
-B
Can someone explain this to me? [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D7iT2MT00o]
I do a lot of thinking on this topic, so please excuse the assortment of thoughts. Worship is an interesting thing in today's culture.
It has changed so much in so many American churches that it hardly resembles anything close to the traditions of old. Many churches continue to use a traditional style, but even this "traditional" style has been changed so much that those who have now spent their entire lives without this style (and it is now entirely possible to have worshipped your entire life and avoid this) are immediately turned off by the liturgies practiced in many congregations.
Many churches around the world were early in this adoption of new forms of worship and many of the American churches followed suit by more or less copying everything that was being deemed as "successful" around the globe. In short, if a church was doing something innovative, new, refreshing, etc...and more people were flocking to their services, something must be going right...and we should enact some of the same principles in our weekly services. It seemed like a fail safe plan.
Churches like WillowCreek in Chicago were instrumental in forming this new "contemporary" worship style by incorporating new energetic music, dramatizations, new orders of worship, and hosting summits and workshops to discuss effective methods of leading others in these times of worship. These services required a bit of production to pull off in a way that would be seen as acceptable and therefore required a bit of training. For a small fee, WillowCreek was happy to provide such training.
I strongly believe that the beginning of this lied in the music development. This is where I begin today.
For years, the Protestant churches have compiled songs written (over hundreds of years) for their churches to use in worship services. They compiled these in the best know compilation technology of their time, books. We often refer to them as hymnals. Hymnals are great. They provide the texts of songs, melody lines, and even four part harmonies in most cases to the songs that churches might use on a weekly basis. What did this do for the church? It made it that much easier to do two things: it allowed a mediocre pianist or organist to accompany the congregational singing. Secondly, it allowed a mediocre choir or choir director to put together music that didn't...suck. This is huge. It made the singing of songs accessible to so many in so many churches. It was such a good idea that the UM church followed up by releasing more of an ecumenical offering called The Faith We Sing . The hymnal seemed to be a good thing, churches were getting their monies out of them, but new songs were on the horizon. TFWS made sense.
Enter modern worship. Guitars instead of organs. Keyboards instead of pianos. Drums and clapping instead of... Praise teams instead of choirs. Sound systems instead of... Worship leaders instead of choir directors.
The songs, at first, were easy. Three or four chords, four or eight lines, five hours long (I stole this from Jason Byassee's sermon a few weeks back). The guitars were by far easier to play than organs. The songs had somewhat simpler melodies and texts so they were easier to sing and comprehend. And they were fun, so more people thought it was nice and enjoyed it. Church was opened up to many more. It made it , more accessible, if you will.
The Leadership was key. Interaction with the congregation was essential. "Selling" a song became a used term. Leadership was key.
In doing this, we opened the door to many who thought that worshipping God was boring. We opened the door to those who had felt outcast from the liturgical forms of worship prior. We made worship feel more like a rock concert instead of an orchestral concert where people in today's culture felt like they were part of the action, rather than just an observer. After all, if you go to worship God, don't you desire to feel like you are part of what is going on?
The leadership could make you feel like you were a part of something great and that there were songs that could help you express that. And they were about to teach one to you. In feeling like you were a part of something great, you felt acceptance. Churches grew. MegaChurches didn't feel that mega because those leading in the music could make it feel so welcoming.
For those who opened their minds to it, it was awesome.
But the music was accessible. Accessibility means a couple of things: it can be had by more than ever before, and it is much easier to cheapen and destroy.
Because it WAS so easy to lead, more people who weren't necessarily gifted in leading began leading.
And all the things that made it so great, came crashing down.
The songs weren't as great because all of a sudden anyone could write one. The thought put into writing was lost. Phrases were reused. Chord progressions were overused. It became very easy to become very sick of a certain song (Lord, I Lift Your Name on High)
The interaction between the leadership and the congregation was lost because people who weren't naturally gifted at leading others in worship were doing so and felt awkward. With the advent of the iPod and recordings, people began to copy what other worship leaders (namely those who wrote the songs) said to THEIR congregations on THAT morning rather than what was relevant to the current congregation this morning.
The leadership in worship was lost.
Sure, there were those who lead the songs. But there is a huge difference between a "song leader" and "worship leader". Arguably, there became a huge difference between a "worship leader" and a "leader of worship".
Want proof? I can't tell you how many times I have heard this phrase leave a person's mouth(one that is a strong supporter of contemporary worship): "I'd rather go to a great traditional worship service than a bad contemporary service."
A couple friends of Allison's and mine went with us (or us with them) to an acapella concert last week. It was fun. They did a nice job. But, the one criticism that we came away with is that (because of lack stage presence and assuredly...planning) they often made the audience feel awkward when it came to things such a transitions between songs, etc.
How many times have you been in a contemporary, or for that matter traditional service, and felt awkward because those leading...didn't know what they were doing? Sure, being uncomfortable in worship can be a good thing. If it is used for stretching, not because you don't have your stuff together.
Contemporary worship, because of its ease of accessibility, has allowed for more people to lead worship than should.
Perhaps we have forgotten that leading worship requires a few essential things in order to be productive to a faith journey. Talent in the gifts that God has blessed you with, and a calling so that you know that THIS is why God has placed you here.
As I struggle with my "calling" in the best role that I could play here on earth, I often question whether I am hesitant to enter the contemporary worship music scene as a leader because of the incredible amount of people who are pursuing that because they thought it would be fun. It's a hard world to enter and I often question whether I am suited for it.
However, with a little trust in what God is doing in the world and in the church, I am continually reminded of the gifts and talents that God has placed on my life and how those might be used to further worship in congregations everywhere.
Worship via music is essential, and I think that it is a huge opportunity for the church to grow. Surely, this is what I am supposed to be doing.
I just hope that I am right.
Thanks for reading.
-B
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLoRFuZU9Ms&]
Ok, so we read another Methodism book in Wesleyan class. I sure hope this counts as credit toward being a Methodist. And that I don't get in trouble for that last sentence. Scott Kisker's Mainline or Methodist? can be summed up, not entirely, but mostly by saying that the United Methodist church has fallen away from it's Methodist roots and may be past the point of hope for change inside of what we know of as today's Mainline denominations. Methodism got comfortable, reacted to certain events in American history and forgot the commitment that Wesley required to be a Methodist to begin with.
In example, the United Methodist church has reacted so much to other denominations not being open that they have become too open. Open hearts, open minds, open doors, open table. Anyone can eat the bread and drink the juice. Anyone is welcome, but not all are encouraged to seek ordination, etc.
All the Wesleyan books have pointed out many of the same concepts. In the development of the Methodist movement, Wesley set up societies to serve as accountability groups for faith followers. The groups served as a means of fellowship, accountability to living a holy life. If you desired to progress from society to society(it was a bit hierarchical), there were requirements.
Here is where it gets interesting to me.
Wesley had his experience at Aldersgate where his heart was strangely warmed and he finally realized that he could not do anything to earn his own salvation. Only the grace of God that is offered through Jesus can provide true salvation. This is often(whether incorrectly or correctly) thought about in terms of legalism.
And this is where we all get confused about Wesley's theology.
We can't earn our own salvation. That's understood in today's Christian culture. But Wesley called on those who desired to live holy lives(as holiness is heart and life was key to salvific living) to demonstrate this by following certain rules. These were strict, and those who did not want to follow them did not have to, but it meant giving up your place is the class, band, or society.
Kisker claims that perhaps Methodism needs to make a reappearance inside of United Methodism. In a sense, one could gather that Kisker desires that we reinstate some of these requirements of being a Methodist in order to begin to build the discipleship of the church again. The argument can be made that this discipleship can then be used as resource for evangelism and actually act in the way that Wesley intended.
My confusion comes when we compare these ideas to Wesley's experience at Aldersgate. I thought that this legalistic idea of salvation was the opposite of Wesley's experience. He finally realized that God alone provided salvation.
I know what you're thinking. Bryant, this is the idea of atonement. Our works and actions can't earn us the atonement. God alone provides that. And the classes, bands, and societies help us to continue and be held accountable in our pursuit of righteous living. They dont equate. I get that. I'm not saying that Wesley was wrong.
But the question I present is regarding the practicality for bringing this to today's culture.
We often equate legalistic ideas (whether they are for atonement, salvation, or just to live a holy life) with those who stand on the street corners and preach damnation and eternal fire. They preach things about not practicing homosexuality, worshipping false idols, and being friends with Muslims.
Rightly, the United Methodist Church saw this and ran. We opened things up so that we didn't get seen as legalistic by any means. And this is what Kisker(and others) says needs to change. We need to require something of our parishioners again. There is a cost and responsibility to discipleship. While this may be true, it is easy to see why Methodists became they way they appear today.
So can Methodism, in the way it appeared in Wesleys day, actually survive in today's world? If we were to enact rules, would people just see us as legalists and write us off as they do many other denominations? I would agree that in theory a righteous lifestyle is the best form of evangelism, but are the accountability rules a practical in today's culture? Would it work?
I'm not so sure.
-B
For more thought, think about what Wesley's open-air preaching might look like today. How would it be perceived?
One of the things that I do when I drive back and forth from Raleigh to Durham or Raleigh to Cary on a regular basis is listen to podcasts. If I've listened to the most recent lectures that my classes have, I pop on a podcast which I can stream directly from iTunes to my phone sans downloading. The audio plays in the background and I'm able to use my phone as a GPS navigator as well. I mean, this is 2010, and this is awesome. My podcasts if choice are almost always one of three: Macbreak Weekly, The Talk Show (John Gruber on 5by5), and The Engadget Podcast. Because the tech world moves so quickly, and it is hard to keep up, I look forward to listening to these every week.
Something occurred to me today though. I asked myself, what are these podcasts talking about? The answer is easy enough, technology. Current, upcoming, and old technology. Every single podcast refers to the news points of the week: what Apple is doing right and wrong, why Microsoft is so far behind in the mobile world, and why Google is so different and trying to challenge everything. In EVERY instance, the commentators talk about their own reviews and personal feelings regarding the tech industry. It is awesome.
But it occurred to me, I am in seminary. Learning about God, the church, Christ, and anything else having to do with those concepts. And yet, I listen to tech podcasts to and from school nearly every day. So, I searched iTunes for the words "United Methodist". You know what I found? Any and every sermon you've ever wanted to find from any United Methodist Church the world over. I mean seriously, there are tons. But you know what they are? They are the opposite of what is encouraged in seminary. And before you go and and get all upset so quickly, I'm not referring to preaching, obviously preaching is encouraged. But in the act of preaching, very little dialogue goes on. (Sadly)In a TYPICAL church, on a typical Sunday, the pastor gets up to give his sermon, the people listen, shake his hand on the way out, and go home.
Sunday School numbers are dropping.
If you're lucky (and I hope you are) you'll discuss the ideas and challenges of the sermon on the ride home or over lunch. Or you'll think about what teams are playing that night.
Here's the thing about the tech podcasts, it's all discussion.
Theres not one person saying what is right or wrong.
It's discussion of why a product will or won't fail.
Because it is such an exciting time for the industry, things aren't failing as much as they are succeeding.
But, the church, by almost all accounts in America, is failing.
And in seminary, it seems to be all that people can talk about. These conversations are happening.
But in the real world, we post podcasts of sermons. With little discussion. Where are the podcasts where Methodists discuss why the UMC isn't Wesleyan? Where are the podcasts that have commentators from several denominations trying to explore what's going on with the church as a whole? Why aren't we publicly discussing ways to fix it?
Because here is the thing: Seminarians will graduate. Many will either find a church or be assigned a church. And slowly, the depth, consistency, and frequency of the discussions will slow. They'll get bogged down with families, parishioners, and making sure the lights get turned off every night. They'll be discussing "long range plans" and how to get more people to attend their services.
And with that, two things happens. The conversations slow and therefore won't be as fruitful. And those meetings where we try to discuss how to better welcome visitors will stay inside the walls. And we will put some sort of plan in place to make it work, but we won't tell the world how hard we are trying.
I'm ready for the Church podcasts. I'm ready for the things the church is doing to spark so much excitement that debate ensues. I'm ready for the conversations about a church that is past its prime to leave the walls of Duke Divinity. I'm ready for some sort of open, honest, conversation to open up in the Church that becomes so vital to our being that rumor sites open up. So vital that we forget about the devices in our hand and think about what is going on in our hearts.
Why is our image based around sermons and not discussions?
-B
Ellen talks about it here. For a little more coverage, see below: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l82g-FaKRv4&]
I only have a few statements to make:
I don't see this as teen bullying. Bullying seems like something that can be overcome. This is evil. Pure evil. [There is only one being that can overcome evil]
The students who did this deserve whatever our justice system can give them. I hope that this dramatically changes the course of their lives.
With the age of the Internet and media that can be recorded, produced, distributed, and streamed from a dorm room, society has got to do a better job of making better decisions. Stupid jokes are no longer theoretical jokes, they are reality and can get out of hand ten times faster than we thought possible before.
How does a campus react to something like this? Keep Rutgers in your prayers. And every other high school or College that has dealt and will deal with this type of situation. In a time when it is still not "acceptable" to be gay, every institution across America has someone somewhere who is watching this story thinking...that could have been me that was outed.
Is anyone else tired of living in a society where this happens?
-B
Every once in a while you learn something in seminary. We are making our way(somewhat slowly as opposed to other classes) through Sondra Matthaei's Making Disciples: Faith Formation in the Wesleyan Tradition in my Forming Disciples in the Wesleyan Tradition class. I was kidding when I said earlier that it is only every once in a while that you learn something, because that seems like all that I am doing, but I like this class in particular because it deals with some of the practicality of parish ministry and the future of the United Methodist Church in particular. In my mind, it's a different type of learning.
I grew up in a Baptist tradition in a church body that seemingly(to me a least) supported women in ministerial roles more than most Baptist Churches do. I never had a woman pastor, but I would have been in support if the question had ever arisen. I never made the distinguishment [please see commentary below based on the word "distinction"] between who should and shouldn't be in a pastoral role. Especially based on gender.
The chapter that I was reading dealt with...who, according to Wesley, shall teach? Matthaei went through several different ideas that Wesley laid down for how things in the church ought to be taught. I particularly liked the emphasis that was put on lay leadership because I feel like it is often a perception of the UMC that lay and diaconal leadership have little power because of some of the stipulations put on the church by the ordination process (for instance, the celebration of marriage ceremonies, sharing and blessing of the Eucharist, baptism, etc...more on my perception of this perception in a later post).
What I like so much about Wesley is that he was so right in so many ways.
Here is the kicker, I got to the section that described Wesley's perception of women in the role of preaching. Matthaei had already spoken about the role of the women in some of their practices with the poor, and had spoken highly of them. However, Wesley here had some hesitancy when it came to women in a role that would require them to preach. It took seeing the fruits of women preaching to point out that perhaps God was working inside of this. Matthaei even goes so far to point out that Charles Wesley was "clearly opposed to the increasing leadership of women."
If you didn't know this already, like myself, it may be a bit shocking because the UMC these days is a bit ahead of the game in the American Church and there seems to be a strong leaning to return to our Wesleyan roots. With that though, there has never been talk, that I have heard, in removing women from their role in the church. This would seem absurd!
To make it a bit less shocking, it is necessary to look at the Wesleys' and their thought process. Many may not know that John simply wanted to reinvigorate the church by building disciples who were growing toward holiness in their love of God and neighbor. After my studies, I dont think that it was his intention to create a new church. Many SHOULD know that Wesley never officially left the Anglican Church (though I am sure that many would have liked him to) and so did not consent to the ordination of women. However, it seems to me that the only reason that Wesley did not formally consent was because of his torn views between the traditional view and the new view that women could contribute significantly in their preaching to the teaching of the church.
Here is what I get: Wesley considered function over form to be necessary. Paul Chilcote puts it this way, "When the normal pastoral system fails to bear fruit, God raises up messengers to do what must be done." Matthaei states that "Since Wesley relied heavily on the criteria of fruits of the Spirit, he could not deny the evidence of God's work in women called to preach.". Wesley would later use the word "barbarity" when speaking of a method of not allowing women to preach.
To me, the most intriguing part of the UMC is the lack of this mentality. Often times, the church in general, does what is "traditional" rather than what is "effective". If something is failing us, should we not reevaluate what that is and come to grips with a way to fix it? And I'm not talking about worship music style either. In Wesley's denomination, it was absurd to assume that a woman could preach, and yet he saw the light that God was working through them and that all people are to use their God given gifts. This would include women.
What is it in today's world that the UMC is doing that is more form over function? Where is God working, bearing fruit, and showing us that we are ignoring? When we finally see the fruits of God's work in human labor, will it be enough? Will it be too late? Does this have anything to do with the significant loss of numbers inside of the UM church over the past 20 to 30 years? What are we doing wrong?
-B
An Orlando area man lashed out on students on his daughters' school bus. If you didn't catch the story, check it out here. If you want to watch it without spin, the YouTube clip is below. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pvsVHdepsw&]
If you watch the Today Show clip linked above, you'll see that the psychologist's response is that the father stepped out too far and that his actions brought about a bad response. She also says that he must teach his daughter to not be a victim and be able to defend herself. A few questions are begged.
1) Really, who can blame him?
2) Defend herself? Against the kind of actions the kids took on her?
3) IS THIS THE SOCIETY WE ARE LIVING IN?
It's probably a good quality of life if you can live without the actions and words of others hurting you in any way, shape, or form. But NO ONE lives like this. Everyone deals with criticism in different ways, but it always changes the soul.
Bullying though, is like criticism without original fault. Everyone has been bullied in one way or another by someone somewhere. Bullying digs deep into the soul to make the individual most vulnerable. After they are vulnerable, it changes their very way of life. It changes their thoughts. It changes their actions, It changes their mindset. It changes their mood. It draws individuals to do horrible things, even take their own life in some cases.
The psychologist on TODAY suggested that the father ought to find the daughter a new way of transportation (are not the children going to be there when she gets to school too?) and teach his daughter to defend herself (do you understand what this means about society?).
If the SOLUTION to bullying lies inside of a proactive action done by the victim, then we are essentially saying that you must learn to defend yourself against others in order to survive life. Some of you are thinking, "Yeah, that's the world...that's reality...get used to it...you'll never get anywhere if you can't stand up for yourself..." And while we are agreed that confidence has to be a key element in presenting yourself to the world, please understand what this is saying about the world. We are saying that we live in a society that REQUIRES its citizens to defend themselves in order to survive.
I see where this works and flows with Darwinism.
But I don't, from a Christian setting, see where this is AT ALL consistent.
Throughout scripture, both Old and New Testaments, God sticks up and cares for the lowly. God has even gone to extremes to make sure that the needy, less, and unjustly treated are finally cared for and spoken for.
We arrest a man who is sticking up for his daughter (however violently threatening he was) when she is being brutally bullied. He was sticking up for one who couldn't speak up for themselves. THIS is what we are called to do.
IF we allow ourselves to fall into the "teach a man to fish" atmosphere, we separate society into separate beings that don't act communally at all. This allows those who aren't as confident and can't speak for themselves to fall to the bottom, be trampled, and die.
This isn't the Bible I'm reading. What about you?
-B
The article explores the problems that Duke's campus police might run into, after the North Carolina court system dismissed charges against a Davidson College student who was arrested by Davidson police for Driving Under the Influence. She claimed that (taken from the article),
her arrest by a campus police officer was an excessive and unconstitutional government entanglement with religion.
Essentially, they (the NC Court of Appeals) decided that because Davidson is considered to be a religious institution or at least retains "significant religious ties", the college must be stripped of its rights to exercise state police power.
Really? The girl was driving while impaired, and was arrested and all charges dropped against her because Davidson police can't arrest because of their religious affiliation?
The article goes on to talk about how this might affect Duke:
Indeed, Durham-based attorney Bill Thomas plans to challenge Duke University Police Department’s arrest powers on the same grounds.
“I think you’ll see that in the immediate future,” Thomas told the Herald-Sun.
He added that language in Duke’s bylaws suggests an “adherence to the Christian tradition and [the promotion of] Christianity.” He did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The Chronicle.
Jerk.
This brings up an interesting idea. How can a school like Duke (private, religiously affiliated, yet relatively large) police its own campus? If Duke were to have to call city police each time there is an incident, Durham police might have to provide Duke its own sector. Hmmm...we'd be back to where we are today.
I know very little about policing a college campus (although I have been involved in the process from time to time) but I would imagine that on a campus the size of Duke, officers must often be trained in specifics relative to the institution as well as typical training.
At Florida Southern, when there was a crisis that called for police action, we called the Lakeland Police Department. But, we had very few of these instances and we didn't have the Cameron Crazies. Really, have you seen the Duke v. UNC games?
Duke University is a very reputable school that still (unlike many) has maintained its early Methodist (or even religious) ties. As it grows and expands, shouldn't it be allowed to be able to police its campus?
Only one more thing: MADD posts this statistic on their website:
In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). These deaths constitute 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008. (Source:NHTSA, 2009)
No one should be allowed to drive while impaired with anything, get caught, and go free because they claim the arrest was unconstitutional.
I think that not killing someone is a Christian ideal. A religious institution should be able to enforce this, just as state police can.
Drunk driving is against the law. Period. Don't do it.
This is utterly ridiculous.
-B
This entire experience brought on a huge amount of controversy in the media because of the anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. Beck held his rally in the same location. He claimed he didn't know. Right...
The purpose was to "Restore Honor".
It was VERY God centered. Very America centered. Very Glenn Beck centered. I didn't feel like it was very restoring-honor centered.
The BEST part of the entire experience is that no news (other than CSPAN) covered the entire rally on television. Almost all of them covered it online tho. Facebook is where most Americans watched the UStream upload.
Under the stream, Beck's team allowed anyone watching to update their Facebook status. I found this much more interesting than the event itself.
I've collected some of my favorites below, on both sides of the political spectrum.
NOTE: When you updated your status from the page, you had to check a box saying that you allowed the status to be shared with the public. Because of this, I have not blurred out the name of those included. You may disagree with this, but I've thought deeply about it.
If the slideshow goes too quickly, press stop and then use the arrows to read them all.
[slideshow]
-B
I have begun leading worship at a new church. It's a different experience for me. You couldn't ask for a nicer, more caring congregation. They truly care about one another and are excited to grow as a church.
We are a new church plant, coming up on a life of a year in September. We meet in a nursery/day care/school on Sunday mornings in Cary, NC at 9:30. You should come.
One of the interesting things about the church though is its worship style. A good word to describe the music style is...eclectic. Perhaps more on that at a later date.
One of the interesting things about this church and its style is the integration of strict liturgy into a new church plant.
I grew up in a Baptist church, and mostly in a contemporary setting. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about liturgy in the church. Except that the use of it is dying.
It was brought to my attention once that some individuals have visited the church and commented that they desired to be more anonymous in worship. Passing the Peace ("Peace be with you" "And also with you") made them uncomfortable. Reciting call and response and following along with those who know it by heart is intimidating. Singing along to the hymns while seated so closely (we currently meet in a small room) to each other made them feel out of place.
I've mentioned this to several friends who also feel called to serve The Church. I used to explain it like this, "People have commented that they'd like the service to be less participatory". From each one I have received the same response: a look of bewilderment and confusion. For those who are used to the traditional style of worship in church, participatory is what the church is. Even in contemporary settings, we are called to participate in worship. (It is important to note as well, that this isn't the overwhelming feeling of the members of the congregation, rather just the voices of a select few who have visited)
I have been explaining it wrong to them. Perhaps a better word to use would be...anonymous. People (visitors in particular) often wish to be anonymous in worship. At least at first. This is especially true of the unchurched.
I believe that this is why the contemporary movement has been so well received. It becomes easy to go to church(something people feel like is important) and feel it out, try it out, before jumping in.
The question becomes, is a traditional liturgical worship style something that is inviting to those who may not have come before? Is it good to feel a little uncomfortable in worship? Is it ok to think that feeling too uncomfortable is wrong? How can a service be "seeker sensitive" yet still keep some of the traditions that have brought it to where it is? Should churches be concerned with being "seeker sensitive"?
There is a lot of people who would put their entire lives, beings, faiths, and more on the line to say that traditions should win out overall. I'll probably go to school with a lot of them in the coming days. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong.
And, if intentions are right (meaning it's not about what's "right" but rather about what's "authentic"), then the answer can be yes...and no...to all of the questions.
Should the church be open to new people and their needs to blend in? Yes.
Should the church put it at the top of it's priority? Probably relatively high if it wants to grow.
Should worship be about a time of celebrating God's goodness together as the Body of Christ? I think so.
Should we be sensitive to new comers and welcome them regardless of anything? Without a doubt.
Should new church plants be made up of churched people from other congregations or completely unchurched folk? Both.
Can these two groups get along and worship in the same ways? I sure hope so.
Do you agree? I don't know.
One thing is for sure in my mind. If joining a church is like joining a fraternity, something is decidedly wrong. The church ought to be (I think) open to anyone and everyone, no matter their background or creed, who is willing and excited to accept the grace that God has given them. Let us all have a chance to truly worship the one who gives us new life.
Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? I hear it's difficult as a first timer.
Do you think that this traditional, liturgical, "high church" atmosphere has hurt the attendance of congregations that still practice it?
Do you think this is why Mega-Churches have been so successful when it comes to numbers?
How does the element of the sacraments play into the ritual of what most churches practice? How is this intimidating to the unchurched?
-B
