I wrote this piece in July of ’07. It garnered 70 comments and some grousy updates on my part. (You can read the original here.)
I’m reprinting the post with a clear comment thread because I feel the sentiment I expressed in this piece is even more true now than ever: there are thousands of evangelicals who would give a serious look at mainline churches, traditional worship and the riches of Protestant heritage IF some good brothers and sisters could recognize our journey and meet us somewhere halfway along the path.
It seems that at the moment there is the most interest in the broader, deeper more serious heritage of Protestantism and a growing discontent with worshiptainment, there is a strong prejudice against evangelicals within those communities that could reach out to them. Evangelicalism needs what Protestantism has always done right…..at least in those places where they still remember what was right all along.
Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans….
______________
Mainline churches….we’re having a moment here.
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ…do you know what I mean? We’re having a moment, and it’s slipping right by.
What moment?
We’re having a moment when thousands of evangelicals are getting a bellyful of the shallow, traditionless, grown up youth group religion that’s taken over their pastor’s head and is eating up their churches.
It’s a moment when people are asking if they want to hear praise bands when they are 70…or if they will even be allowed in the building when they are 70. It’s a moment when the avalanche of contemporary worship choruses has turned into one long indistinquishable commercial buzz. It’s a moment when K-Love is determining what we sing in church and that’s not a good thing.
It’s a moment when some people are wondering if their children will ever know the hymns they knew or will ever actually hold a Bible in their hand at church again. It’s a moment when a lot of people are pretty certain if they hear the words “new,” “purpose” or “seeker” one more time, they may appear on the evening news for an episode of “church rage.”
It’s a moment when significant numbers of people have heard the same ten sermon series so many times they could fill in for the pastor on short notice. It’s a moment when many people would actually like to see a section of the congregation who are over 50 and not trying to look under 30.
It’s a moment that- believe it or not- some people actually want to go to something that looks like church as they remember it, see a recognizable pastor, hear a recognizable sermon, participate in the Lord’s Supper, experience some reverence and decorum, and leave feeling that, in some ways, it WAS a lot like their mom and dad’s church. It’s a moment when reinventing everything may not be as sweet an idea as we were told it was.
It’s a moment when the baby boomer domination of evangelicalism is showing signs of cracking. Some younger people actually want to hear theology. They aren’t judging everything by how seekers evaluate it or what Rick Warren would say about it.
Yes, my mainline friends, we’re having a moment here. You can see it all around the edges of evangelicalism. It’s there and it’s real. It isn’t easy or automatic, but it’s there. And it is sad to realize that at the very time so many are looking for what you have, you’re mostly squandering the moment entirely.
Your churches could be taking in thousands of evangelicals. That’s right. Those recognizably “churchy” churches of yours, with the Christian year, the Biblically rich liturgy, the choir robes, the still-occasionally used hymnals and the multi-generational, slightly blended worship services, could be taking in thousands of evangelicals.
Of course, you’d have to want them. You’d have to, in many ways, meet them halfway or more. You’d need to talk to them as younger evangelicals, not dangerous fundamentalists. You’d have to reconsider how important it is to you to keep homosexual grievances constantly on the front burner. You’d have to start acting like Biblical morality meant something. You’d have to stop acting as if being mainline is a game where you wait to see how fast the membership dies off.
It’s a moment when you need to speak the language of people who want to hear the Bible; a moment when preachers need to preach mature, Biblical evangelical messages.
Those younger evangelicals are ready for your appreciation of tradition, your more balanced theological method, your commitment to multi-generational churches and your more substantial appreciation of justice issues.
But they aren’t ready for the things that have emptied so many of your churches. They will never come if things remain the same. Much needs to change and should change.
You need to communicate, and you need to go back to your roots. It’s frustratingly ironic to know that when many of us are longing for a church that has the things we cannot find in evangelicalism, you have so many of those very things every Sunday. But what you don’t have is the willingness to come back to the center of evangelicalism where people who love the Bible and take it seriously can find a home with you.
You’ve made it clear that you want those on the left. And evangelicals have made it clear that they are not going to accommodate those who want tradition. We’re having a moment here, if you can stop and see it, who knows what could happen? Will your own churches divide in order to meet evangelicals on the road? Or will the moment go by, a “might have been,” that never was to be?
The moment will come and it will go. Right now, the moment is upon all of us.
It strikes me reading through these comments, and reflecting on these issues, that perhaps part of the appeal of the “worshiptainment†is that we enjoy new and exciting and interesting things when we we are being entertained… — Rev Mc Cain
In the Book of Acts, when St Paul is in Athens, doesn’t Luke mention that the Athenians were obsessed with “hearing and talking about the Latest New Thing”?
MS,
I have heretofore tried my best to stay out of this thread… but I just can’t help it. Not speaking for Daniel, I have my own answers to your questions to him:
Where do all those contemporary songs come from?
It seems there may be an assumption that all “contemporary” songs are a result of consumerist influence. If that is true, then so are all the precious hymns in the hymnal, for at one time they, too, were contemporary and written to satisfy someone’s need for something new or different in that time. Handel, Crosby, and Newton were not more purely inspired to write songs than Tomlin, Powell, or Hillsong.
To many, the old hymns have deep meaning. To many others, the new songs have deep meaning. The problem here is not the songs themselves, but the fact that the two groups aren’t made of of the same people. Individual preference now is overriding submission to one another. It is dubious to make it a “my songs are better worship than your songs are” argument.
Do you believe tradition has any value?
Like the songs, tradition only has value to the one observing it. Traditions do not have inherent value in and of themselves. Only when the underlying meaning or historical relevance of the tradition is discussed, passed down, and is incorporated in the act will tradition be anything other than an empty act. That is the problem… the traditions of the church have been passed down through the generations, but in our current time, the underlying meaning has been lost, or at minimum not even discussed. Why are smells and bells meaningful? Why is liturgy important? Why is communion transcendent? Why is a capella singing special? What does baptism mean? Who knows… no one ever explained that to us. All this generation has received is “do it, or else”.
Why were they disposalable and replaceable… ?
Again, because they were stripped of the meaning that kept them in the heart of those who came before us. None of it has any meaning because no one passed that meaning on to their children. They are nothing, now, but boring, empty acts to them.
And finally, does scripture proscribe any elements of worship?
According to my reading (again, IMHO) true worship as described by Romans 12:1 and James 1:27 have very little to do with the “elements” commonly commanded in the worship wars. No elements are proscribed, as I see it. Responsive readings, liturgy, public readings, and singing are all discussed in the context of encouraging one another, not as a neo-levitical worship code.
–Justin
Good questions all. Other people will be better able to answer than myself, but here is my take:
Consumerism has obviously affected every area of American culture, and it would be naïve to think any Church fully escapes its claws. That said, I don’t know how much of the failures of any church’s worship is to be attributed to consumerism per se, rather than our persistent tendency to idolatry (in this case, forming Church in our own image). As for where the songs come from, I won’t attempt to discern Chris Tomlin’s or Matt Redman’s motives. All I know is that some of their songs express a certain spiritual truth more clearly than any other songs I can think of, and so I schedule them to be sung. For example, I was recently preaching through Ephesians 1, and, as usual, wanted part of the worship songs to be a response to the truth of the sermon and scriptures. Verse 4 was the key passage, where it speaks of God choosing us before the creation of the world to be adopted as His sons. The song which most clearly seemed to express this truth in a worshipful way was, “Before there was Time†(by Caedman’s Call).
As for tradition, I try to follow Jesus’ words in Matthew 13:52, about bringing out treasures both old and new. This year will begin with a three month series on the attributes of God. We will recite the Apostle’s Creed (something we don’t normally do). Many of the songs will be hymns. As for communion, in our church it is “traditional†to do this monthly. I work hard to make the Lord’s Supper understood and appreciated.
As for Divas of the stage, yes that does concern me. At my church we have four different worship teams that rotate, and other people who lead the hymns. Other churches will have to answer for themselves. I know this may be an issue with some large churches, but I haven’t seen it too much in my neck of the woods.
Your last question is one I have been wrestling with on and off for some time. I Corinthians 12-14 give the fullest picture of worship in a New Testament Church, and I struggle with how much of that is to be considered normative and proscriptive. While I am certainly still learning, my own approach is to try to incorporate the principles of worship from the scriptures, rather than duplicating the forms of that worship. The exception to this is the passage you alluded to in I Timothy, which seems to me to be very proscriptive.
After reading Justin’s response (which I had to click on in several places to read the whole thing) I think I will just let him take up my side. He explains things better than I. Besides, I better get back to work!
The entire Eucharistic Service revolves around this. I think that so many Christians who dismiss the value of the traditional liturgy in the Mass (I’m using this term in a generic sense that can be applied to many denominations) either have never read/experienced it or just remember being bored by “rote” prayer rather than seriously considering the content. It’s POWERFUL Christ-centered stuff. When I go to either a mainline or a Catholic Sunday service I never have to worry about Jesus only getting a cameo or about not hearing the Gospel.
I really think it’s a “he who has ears to hear” sort of thing. I can respect the idea that liturgy just doesn’t “do it” for some folks. But that’s not the liturgy’s fault. Just like my personal difficulties with corporate spontaneous prayer isn’t the prayers’ fault.
Obed: The question was about the mainlines, not the RCC. Eager Catholic friends please don’t be over-eager.
Justin:
>….It is dubious to make it a “my songs are better worship than your songs are†argument.
No one made that argument, or ever has made that argument, in 8 years on this site. Of course, dozens of people have responded to that argument, because they are committed to that view themselves in regard to CCM.
>….tradition only has value to the one observing it. Traditions do not have inherent value in and of themselves.
Is that what’s going on with passover, the Lord’s Supper and all the NT mentions of traditions? Radical individualism? I don’t think so. God is installing tradition in the passover and the LS.
That’s a serious charge you are making about tradition. It will eat up whatever you install in your churches and eventually leave you with nothing but the rule of the individualists. Not a good thing.
>...No elements are proscribed.
You’re reading the Bible as a radical individualist apparently. I Timothy commands preaching, public readding of scripture. Hebrews commands gathering. I Cor commands an offering and the LS. Psalms commands liturgy. On and on this goes.
Where did you get the idea that Rom 12 means you get to wipe out everything except what is meaningful to YOU? Where did you get permission to throw out what Jesus practiced? Why aren’t you a Quaker? Why do you baptize? Why gather at all if I find internet sermons more meaningful?
peace
ms
At the risk of speaking for iMonk, I think what he was referring to is the way that much of CCM is pushed by the same techniques and often by the same people as Top 40 pop radio. This includes the various worship labels and sub-labels. Who decides what CCM songs are good? K-Love. It’s not a style issue, it’s a lowest-common-denominator marketing issue. Sure there are some good songs out there, but the vast majority of what’s pushed is fluffy crap with no substance. And what makes it popular is marketing rather than any intrinsic value.
I spent many years as the worship leader at my old church. By-and-large when specific songs were requested by either the pastor or the congregation it was because people had heard ‘em on K-Love or “all the other churches are playing them” And by-and-large, those songs were HORRIBLE musically and lyrically and didn’t made the cut on my watch.
I was using “Mass” in a generic sense as Anglican, Episcopalian, some Luthern, and some Presby liturgical services often have the same elements… or at least VERY similar elements in my experience.
NP. I don’t hear “mass” used generically very much, and my evangelical readers might be confused.
No one made that argument, or ever has made that argument, in 8 years on this site.
Well, is it just sentimentalism, then? What, IS the argument of hymns over CCM?
What I said was, “Individual preference now is overriding submission to one another.”
Is that what’s going on with passover, the Lord’s Supper and all the NT mentions of traditions?
Absolutley, yes. God set up these things with the meaning of rememberance behind them. If there is no remembering (which I would argue is exactly the case in the vast majority of LS/Communion/Eucharist observances), then they are nothing but empty rote. How can any of us observe them in any sort of meaningful way if we haven’t been taught what we’re remembering? It doesn’t just come on it’s own.
You’re reading the Bible as a radical individualist apparently.
Careful, [MOD: Don't use my name, please. Especially not "Mike."] People who live in glass houses…
Where did you get the idea that Rom 12 means you get to wipe out everything except what is meaningful to YOU?
I didn’t. You threw that on me to set up the straw man. Throw your “individualist” label on someone else. I explicitly stated that the commands of scripture regarding our gatherings are in the context of encouraging one another… perhaps you missed that. [MOD: Disagreement doesn't mean someone "missed" anything.]
Obed, you stated:
… the vast majority of what’s pushed is fluffy crap with no substance… by-and-large, those songs were HORRIBLE musically and lyrically…
How is this not an example of, a “my songs are better worship than your songs are†argument?
You’re entitled to your opinion [MOD edited.]
I simply don’t believe that everything is merely a matter of opinion and “everyone’s got one.” Some songs are objectively better than others. They are better in lyrical content and sometimes better musically. Just as an extreme example, I offer the lyrics to “Praise To The Lord, The Almighty” versus “Eneny’s Camp” (a popular chorus in charismatic circles).
Praise To The Lord, The Almighty
Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear,
Now to His temple draw near;
Sing now in glad adoration!
Praise to the Lord, who o’er all things so wondrously reigneth,
Shelters thee under His wings, yea so gently sustaineth
Hast thou not seen,
How thy desires all have been,
Granted in what He ordaineth?
Praise to the Lord, who doth prosper thy work and defend thee
Who from the heavens the streams of His mercy doth send thee.
Ponder anew,
What the Almighty can do,
Who with His love doth befriend thee.
Praise to the Lord! Oh, let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him!
Let the Amen,
Sound from His people again;
Gladly for aye we adore Him.
Enemy’s Camp
Well, I went to the enemy’s camp and
I took back what he stole from me
I took back what he stole from me
I took back what he stole from me
Oh, I went to the enemy’s camp and
I took back what he stole from me
You know
He’s under my feet
He’s under my feet
He’s under my feet
He’s under my feet
He’s under my feet
He’s under my feet
Satan is under my feet
(repeat ad nauseum)
Not only is the first one musically superior to the other by any measure but the lyrical content is head and shoulders above the latter. ESPECIALLY when the context is a worship service.
One can make the statements iMonk made about “grown up youth group” music and still allow that there are modern hymns and praise songs that are actually good and conducive to worship. It just seems there are a whole lot of really bad ones and just a few good ones in the average Sunday service.
Ragamuffin,
Beauty (and thus art, songs, etc.) are in the eye of the beholder. You like what you like.
Art is not objective, else it would be science.
I’ll repeat it again… this whole issue is about holding up preferences over mutual submission and encouragement. And the cycle will repeat, ad nauseum, until one lets the other have their way some of the time.
I, publicly, apologize to Michael for calling him a nickname which was offensive. I am a dolt, sometimes. I’m sorry.
Objective or personal preference, Justin:
Phil 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Preference.
Regardless of what anyone’s opinion is, there are many who think CCM songs are honorable, pure, lovely, and excellent. And, there are many who think hymns are honorable, pure, lovely, and excellent. Good! Dwell on those things! But why do both sides blame the other for ruining worship? Why not submit to one another out of love?
This whole “one is obviously better than the other” thing is craziness to me. That is my neurosis. It doesn’t have to be yours.
The many, many discussions here at IM have urged evangelicals not to throw out hymns, and while the criticism of the flood of new music has been strong at times, this blog has never taken the position that CCM is all wrong. In fact, there are numerous posts praising numerous CCM artists and promoting their work. My podcast uses Pierce Pettis, Randy Stonehill. Several posts have invited listeners to list CCM that they find worthwhile. I have always commended the new music that was Christ centered and of worth. Look at my review of the new Baptist Hymnal.
Yes, some commenters have made sweeping statements, but this blog and the vast majority of its audience are plenty savvy enough to know that there is good music of all times and eras.
And Phil 4:8 is objective or its nonsense.
Subjectivity is not nonsense. Paul uses “whatever is”. Paul is telling the church to allow for subjectivity under the context of mutual encouragement. In context the qualifier is encouraging others. Having one to the exclusion of the other (which is the real issue here) disenfranchises instead of encouraging. There is no justification in the NT that I can find for disenfranchising members of the church for any reason, not least of which is false propriety.
“That just isn’t right” isn’t a good reason.
Disenfranchisement?
Exclusion?
You’ve lost me.
Paul clearly believes there are objective aesthetic values. None of us perceive them as God does, but we can perceive the difference between all kinds of aesthetics. And we can perceive the false distinctions. If there weren’t objective aesthetics of truth, what are you trying to convince anyone about? Your opinion would have no objective superiority as “true.”
You’ve really lost me on this entire adventure, and we’ve wandered very, very far from the opportune moment many mainline churches have to appeal to evangelicals, which is the point of this post.
So peace and adieu.
ms
Michael,
I read Diana Butler Bass’s book, Christianity for the Rest of Us, and it outlined many ways that mainline churches are finding revitalization, particularly as “neighborhood” churches. I recommend it to readers of this post, though some of the things she calls “revitalization” many evangelicals would deem a step backward.
What are some specific examples you know of mainline churches that are actively reaching out and attracting evangelicals and including them in congregations that respect the conservative traditions and theological stances that they represent?
Justin, the issue is not CCM vs hymns, though it often ends up seeming that way because we’ve had decades or centuries to filter out the truly sucky hymns while K-Love and the like are foisting more schlocky Jesus-is-my-boyfriend “worship” fare on us every week.
No, it’s good music that is conducive to worship versus bad music which is not. And it’s not mere subjectivity. There are good CCM songs and bad hymns for instance. But overwhelmingly, the CCM stuff we’re being fed is infantile, simplistic, replete with bad or underdeveloped theology and trite. And people are even writing wonderful modern hymns such as “In Christ Alone” and “How Deep The Father’s Love For Us.” And I’m sorry, but it’s not subjective to point out the superiority of such songs over things like “Enemy’s Camp.” There just isn’t. If you want to measure it with a slide rule and a protractor, maybe that doesn’t satisfy you. But to some degree when listening to music and determining whether something is fitting and conducive to worship and whether it is good art, it’s like the judge’s comments on what is pornography. His reply, “I just know it when I see it.”
“So to arms I say! If the teacher or pastor or the worship leader says something that isn’t Biblical, stand up (even if it’s in the middle of a worship service or sermon), read from your Bible, and correct the error. If this means openly contradicting the speaker, don’t bite your tongue, openly contradict him.”
What about the less obvious issues. Like talking about what Christians can learn from Oprah since she’s a good Christian down deep. A statement that was 1/2 of what pushed me out of my last church.
There’s no verse xxxx which contradicts this.
I interrupted a guest speaker once. (I was an elder and the church was between pastors.)
Trust me. You do not want to do this!
Eclectic Christian – Michael Bell
“I interrupted a guest speaker once. (I was an elder and the church was between pastors.)
Trust me. You do not want to do this!”
I assume things got interesting.
I have to ban myself from commenting when I get fed up with other things (however related) going on in my own church. I still stand by most of that comment, particularly the “it’s time to get more aggressive” part. But I was wrong – interrupting the preacher is probably a really bad idea 99 times out of 100. Not for reasons of courage as much as for decorum, pastoral authority, and the fact that we can’t have everyone thinking they can speak up and tell the pastor when he’s wrong.
There are probably a few times to do this (denial of the gospel for ex.), and Eclectic Christian might have picked one of those times, but I could still see it getting really ugly really quickly. I’ve only done this once in a Bible study taught by a pastor (a less formal setting), and it contributed to the eventual canceling of the Bible study – something I’m not proud of. If they make dumb but not particularly Scripture violating comments (like how we can learn from Oprah), there is no reason you can’t pull the speaker aside afterwards (especially if you are a deacon or elder like Eclectic Christian).
IMonk said that evangelicals are getting sick and tired of “shallow, traditionless, grown up youth group religion.” Well that describes me. Finding another mainline church that has something different to offer would be great. And I also agree that we do need to avoid the “consumerism” attitude towards church warned against here in some of the comments. For now, I’m trying to take up the fight a little more aggressively than normal at my church, and I could see it either helping change things or getting me sent off packing. Other friends I talk to are feeling the same way – there is something missing and we’re all very frustrated because of it.
“Evangelicals are getting sick and tired of shallow, traditionless, grown up youth group religion.”
Just a word of caution to people here. My son, who is 14, but is very wise for his years has experienced a number of different churches. Everything from Mainline liturgical, to very seeker sensitive, to charismatic, and a somewhat middle of the road Baptist church that we currently attend. His comment about the mainline church was “the music was very interesting, I think its purpose was to lull you to sleep just before the Pastor started preaching.”
My point is this: My children are actively involved in church. Yes, my son would like to go to the “killer worship band” seeker sensitive church, but he is reasonably happy in the middle of the road church that we have chosen. If we were to go to the mainline church, (which has one of the best church choirs that you can possibly imagine), there is a much greater likelihood that my kids would switch off of church.
Sure I would like something broader and deeper, but not at the expense of my kids’ interest. As parents though, we will to give them exposure to a range of churches, so that when they are older, they can start to make these decisions for themselves.
As an ex Catholic, I actually love and miss the high liturgy. The problem is that liturgy itself is not sufficient and I would much prefer to attend a vibrant church with a low liturgy than a dead church with a beautiful liturgy. I am now part of the PCA which, despite various comments to the contrary here, seems to have decent liturgy while remaining vibrant from a evangelical standpoint.
I think we should all keep in mind that there are no right answers here. The world is a big place and there is a huge segment of the population that does not attend church at all. I think there is a real value to having churches of all types so long as we are working together and not competitive. It sort of makes me sick that many church leaders spend all their time thinking about how they can compete with other churches. They need to start thinking about reaching the majority that has no connection to church at all.
But I think what some of us are saying is not that we’d prefer a dead liturgical church to a vibrant “low liturgy” one. Rather, we’d like a vibrant higher liturgy church to any of the other options. I know at least for me, despite the other areas of vibrancy the contemporary style churches I’ve been attending, I’m still wanting more. More reverence, more connection to history, more beauty, more mystery, more of a sense of calm and peace rather than cacophony and frenzy.
No one is asking for liturgy as an end unto itself. We see it as a component of something deeper and more meaningful that the contemporary churches just aren’t able to give.
Edmund Pevensie said: (#
I’m always curious when I hear people make comments like this. What sort of “systems” do you feel restricted your access to God? As an Episcopal Priest I am often frustrated by what I can only describe as “clericalism in the wrong areas” where people wouldn’t dream of listening to pastoral counsel in areas where it really matters (you’ve gone from preaching to meddling etc…) but use the fact that the clergy person might know more on a given subject in the Bible (surprise, surprise, it is our responsibility) as an excuse not to study it themselves. I guess what I’m trying to say is that, unless one is in a legalistic tradition, most of the barriers people feel between them and God in any given church in the US seem to me to be pretty much self-imposed, so I’m interested to hear some specific things that make people feel this way so that I can avoid them like the plague in my own ministry (or explain things in a more constructive way).
I’d love to hear other responses to the above as well–I don’t want to side-track the thread however, so I’m posting on my blog (linked to my name) about this subject and would invite comment there, or via email:
frjody@stfrancis-tn.net
Thanks!
In regards to this post, I commented on it originally, and it described my own faith journey. I was raised in a Southern Baptist family, but realized that I desired a less rationalistic approach to the faith, as well as a greater knowledge of and respect for the great tradition of the Church. I visited a lot of different congregations… from ELCA to Methodist (more “liturgical” than my Baptist roots) to Eastern Orthodox. Finally when I was in college I overcame my concerns about the perceived liberalism of the Episcopal Church in my area and visited a congregation and the rest is history.
I am now the vicar of a mission church in the Diocese of Tennessee.
I suppose one conclusion I have come to–even since the first time this was posted–is that most of the time when people complain about a denomination being “too liberal” or not taking the Bible seriously it is really a smoke-screen because so few people really take the Bible seriously at all… it just seems that those in supposedly conservative denominations want to talk about it in more serious ways and have people they can point to who they believe live holy lives–even while their own life may actually be far more removed from righteousness than many of the “liberals” they malign for not talking tough.
I’m not so much criticizing the faithful members of any particular church as I am those folks who church shop and allow disagreements with denominations etc… to prevent them from growing in the faith by being part of an actual community of fellow believers, and committing themselves for the long haul. It’s much easier to remain aloof and criticize than it is to do the hard work that the faith and community demand.
My advice to anyone considering a mainline congregation, is to find a local church where the Gospel is preached and the faith is taken seriously. Become part of that congregation and commit to being there. Take part in the leadership when you feel able. Recognize that the various denominational boats are being rocked by a tremendous storm on our collective cultural sea and they may react differently. But, in the end, what is important is the faith that is proclaimed in your community and the fact that it is faithful.
I believe–as does my Bishop indecently–that we are facing the reality that our denominations are dying (not just liberal ones). Ironically, the Church in the west may be facing the reality of the Cross, and it may have to die (in its current structures) so that it can live again. But this doesn’t mean we should abandon ship, or not commit ourselves… regardless of what happens to the institutions, these various traditions will continue in some form, and it is the faithful people and congregations who practice the faith in those traditions who will survive the transition.
The first line of the past paragraph should read: “I believe–as does my Bishop incidently…” He might believe it indecently as well, but that wasn’t the point :-p
Will S: My specific criticism of the PCA was that the dominant segment of leadership was hostile to higher forms of liturgy, specifically the Christian year. I appreciate the liturgy that is part of my son’s PCA and would gladly exchange the circus in the typical Baptist church for the liturgy of the PCA.
imonk, yeah, I went from Catholic to Baptist and now PCA and so far, PCA is head and shoulders above the first two in terms of the potency of worship. I think there should always be a little mystery and suprise in worship but in the Baptist tradition that comes in the form of “Oh my, what the heck is going to happen next….. whoa, don’t ask that deacon to pray extemporaneously….oh, please don’t tell me we are going to do another skit…….dance?? are you serious….” and so on.
Baptists have pretty much destroyed worship, spirituality and meaningful church membership. All they have left is missions and evangelism.
Sometimes I despair in that our ways of worship are still miles apart, despite Phyllis Tickle’s Great Convergence. As illustration, here are two interesting videos, one from a megachurch in Atlanta http://www.northpoint.org/ (click on “Before you Attend) and the other from a old but growing Episcopal church in Dallas http://www.incarnation.org/pages/Angelus (click on welcome video). Each church is filled with folks from the likes of the opposing video.
Benb,
My wife came back from a conference a while ago where she heard Phyllis Tickle’s Great Convergence presentation and thought it was great. I have to say–with the caveat that I have not heard her in person–that I’m unconvinced that the convergence will form a new majority. I think there is some convergence going on, and it may result in a new paradigm where “blended worship” no longer has to be called “blended.” But ultimately, I don’t think the perspectives on worship embodied by Northpoint and Incarnation are compatible.
I have a friend who can’t stand liturgy–it feels dead to him, while I don’t feel at all like I’ve been to church when I visit his congregation (I feel like I’ve been listening to an ipod, seen a performance and heard a lecture on something, but not to worship) I’m not sure there is a single way of doing things that could bring us together on Sunday morning, thought our perspectives are not that different otherwise.
Michael, Amen a thousand times over on the destruction of worship, spirituality and meaningful church membership…. while this is not the case in every single baptist church sadly, it’s true in most these days. Listen, my wife was raised in the church of Christ and I don’t have to tell you the things we went through early in our dating and marriage relationship. She eventually decided to join the baptist church however, at the time we met she was attending a “moderate/liberal” COC – I know…. what am I talking about… a moderate or liberal COC??? Yes, the COC she was attending in the nort part of Knoxville was considered by other COC’s, including the one she was raised in, to be moderate/liberal because they preached salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone and because they “allowed” or “fellowshiped” people from other demonations.
Now what’s the point here – at this time in this journey we’ve talked of going back to the COC in north Knoxville if we leave the baptist church we are in now. The particular COC in north Knoxville has a definate liturgy – typically as follows:
Opening Prayer
hymn
Prayer
Communion hymn
Communion
hymn
offering
message (sermon)
invitation/with hymn
baptism
closing prayer
closing hymn
That was pretty much it in a nutshell as best I remember it and while it is simplistic it’s still a liturgy and it was always a meaningful time of worship and especially meaningful during Communion which was taken at every week during the Sunday morning service. Of course being an organist would be a little difficult initially as COC’s do not use music instruments or choirs – all singing is by the congregation without accompaniment which is very beautiful as this particular congregation sang very, very well together.
I could deal with attending the COC my wife was at when we met as they did actually preach truth and the gospel was always presented clearly and uncompromised. Yes the baptism emphasis was there as you would expect however, this church stressed the grace and faith aspect more than other COC’s. Your accepting Christ by grace through faith was always ahead of the the baptism not before which makes this COC different from most – so much so that another COC in the city wanted to use the the building and baptistry of the north Knox COC once for a baptism service since they didn’t yet have one but the stipulation was that the building be opened and left for their use and no member of the COC that owned the place could be there while they had their baptism service – that’s how liberal this church was thought to be and what they call liberal in a COC is conservative in most other churches. Neeless to say the church requesting use of the building did not get it!
Too long again…. can’t seem to be short and consise – hope this helps a little.
I will observe ruefully that the RCC is not immune to “shallow, traditionless, grown up youth group” religious experiences either. They don’t usually show up in routine weekly worship, but retreats? Oy.
Well, evangelicals have decided that what was youth group camp and retreat nonsense will now be the regular order of service. Hats of to the RCC again.
Guy from Knoxville,
In all my years associated with the cofC (where I grew up), I have never heard someone describe the “order of worship” as a liturgy. My, my, that would float like a lead balloon in the congregations I was a part of.
The thing is, you’re right. And it’s pretty consistent no matter which one you meet with.
My disenfranchisement grows…
Justin, You’re correct in that it was never called liturgy in the COC that my wife was attending when we met and it would have been an “issue” if it had been mentioned. While that particular COC was more “moderate” than others there were still sacred cows just as there are in other churches. Yes, the consistancy was and still is there and the services were always very meaningful to me and many times the messages given by their preaching minister would have preached very well in a baptist church without question.
If things don’t pan out at the baptist church we’re at we are planning to consider several differnt church bodies in the area – AMiA, Christian (DOC) and a non-denom. that is liturgical in style with communion as it’s focal point in the service but has more contempo music insted of sacred though that is used some. The Christian (DOC) church might be an issue since some are so liberal that they could just as easily be a UCC even
though the two aren’t related in their history – don’t know if we can find a conservative one of those anywhere but there is one that might fit the bill but would require a little more research. The AMiA is a definately going to be checked out.
Continuing the journey….
I’m a “lapsed evangelical” for PRECISELY this reason and it is a move I should have made 30 years ago spiritually speaking (but I would not have met my wife and a host of dear friends who have not followed me). I am now Episcopalian.
My Rector described us as “a Bible believing, evangelical, anglo-catholic, episcopal parish”. Extremely high church, old liturgy with the permission of the bishop. Thank God that we get along with him better than many churches in the diocese colser to his theology. I’ll never go back.
And yet, there are those who want to “hipify” our services to entice others to come. The Rector is having none of it. Still, we are flatlined in growth and at 55, I’m close to the median age here.
Question: HOW DO I GET WORD OUT TO FRUSTRATED EVANGELICALS THAT WE EXIST AND WANT YOU TO JOIN US?
You see, most of my friends and former peers like the new and some have left my old church (once relatively “high” for Baptists, now a little this, a little that; “I will spew you out…”, but I digress.) for hipper stuff. A little help?
IMonk,
I’m a baptist in a rural applachian free style (to put it mildly) church. Over the last five years I have been able to structure some thigns some what. We do the Lord’s Prayer, I have added a scripture reading in addition to the sermon text. I have preached the RCL for the last three years even though I’m sure they do not know what that is. I had a fairly scripted Lord’s Supper, but it’s still a struggle. Most of my congregation are willing to follow, but any suggestion that the songs should be thought about before the “Spirit Leads” or if “gasp” we did a responsive reading, I have a small very vocal minority that would rather burn the building down than do it.
My question is two fold.
1. How do baptist reclaim some of the lost beauty of worship? Most of the more formal bapitst churches are Reformed and I am not one who thinks Calvins writings are innerant.
2. Where else can a baptist go? All other churches that have high worship are either 1. Liberal social baptist churches i.e. CBF or denominations that still hold to infant baptism. It’s sort of hard for a convinced baptist, no matter how fed up with shallow worship, to overlook that.
Any help or suggestions from anyone?
Thanks,
austin
First of all, you’ve done a lot where you are. Celebrate that. I mean really, you’ve seen a lot reclaimed. They are probably as far as they can come.
Where to go?
Virginia and North Carolina. First Baptists in small towns, esp with educated congregations.
The Disciples (Christian) are an option for a lot of people. Same with EFC.
I’d go a lot of places with infant baptism right now if I could bring along the rest of the Christian tradition.
peace
ms
IMonk,
Can you elaborate a little on that last statement?
Thanks,
Austin
“I’d go a lot of places with infant baptism right now if I could bring along the rest of the Christian tradition.”
Michael,
I always appreciate your posts about what mainlines are doing well and where they are failing. I know you identify as a post-evangelical who is coming from the evangelical tradition and looking to mine the broader church for riches and that’s the audience you’re writing to, but myself and I suspect a few other readers of yours are coming the other way. I’m a low-church Anglican getting a little lower all the time as I look to learn from what the evangelical tradition has done well. The post-evangelicals and the post-mainlines need to collaborate more. Are there post-mainlines? There should be. For the people who love the ancient and serious church but are frustrated by the new religious moralism and the flimsy stand for Christ and Him crucified. Anyways, thanks for the encouragement and prodding.
Just saw a post over at “A Little Leaven” that reminded me of this discussion again. Might even be the one rare time men in the congregation should stand up to silence the guest speaker.
So I don’t know about you guys, but if John Crowder were to ever walk up to the podium at the church I go to … well … I’d be done with evangelicalism for good and I’d be sitting in a Lutheran or Episcopalian church the next Sunday. Thankfully, I’m 90% sure we wouldn’t let Crowder at the podium at my church. Unfortunately, if you look at his list of speaking engagements, other evangelical churches are letting him in.
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2009/01/blasphemy-in-the-church.html
This may be going out on a limb but as I see things the moment and the crisis related to the moment that iMonk is talking about is that we’re not looking at a problem of consumeristic flocks we’re looking at a problem of consumeristic leadership … in both traditions. The more time goes by and I read and hear Christians opine about the dangers of consumerism the more I see it being a problem not with the led so much as with leaders, or people who simply think they are leaders.
I won’t attempt to respond to 150 comments, but I’ll just leave my story.
I am the son of an Assemblies of God pastor. A very sane and not-crazy-not-heretical pastor. Long story short, Bible College taught me Church History and Theology while I was burning out on mainstream Evangelical culture.
From there I turned to a local Episcopal Church (charismatic/evangelical) and haven’t been happier to be a Christian in a very very long time.